On Friday, March 13, 2015 08:17:21 PM Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: > On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 11:57 AM, Scott Kitterman <scott@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > wrote: > > On Friday, March 13, 2015 11:35:45 AM John C Klensin wrote: > > > --On Thursday, March 12, 2015 11:40 -0400 Sam Hartman > > > > > > <hartmans-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > I'm disappointed that the trust chose to remove the right to > > > > modify template text. > > > > > > > > This makes it impossible to write open-source software for > > > > filling in templates in these RFCs; I am disappointed the > > > > trust has chosen to take this step. > > > > > > Sam, > > > > > > This may go back to our earlier (apparent) disagreement on the > > > subject. IANAL or nearly a good enough approximation to one to > > > be competent to assess the details, but my presumption continues > > > to be that the basic rules about RFCs, plus this language, > > > allows the type of application you are concerned about as long > > > as the version of the template in the application is an exact > > > copy. Given that language, one would certainly have to > > > acknowledge where the template came from, but that would > > > probably be necessary for practical reasons (independent of > > > legal considerations). > > > > > > Given that the issue has been raised and is important, I'm > > > disappointed that the Trust didn't choose to make the intent and > > > limits absolutely clear whether they intended the narrow > > > interpretation you infer or the broader one that I do. In > > > particular, if the intent is that someone building such an > > > application be required to ask permission (which I think would > > > be silly as well as damaging), it would be good for the text to > > > be clear about that). > > > > > > best, > > > > > > john > > > > "as long as the version of the template in the application is an exact > > copy" > > is the problem. Freedom to modify is a fundamental principle of free and > > open > > source software. It's OK from a FOSS perspective to say "If you change > > it, > > you have to call it something else" to avoid confusion, but it has to be > > legally modifiable. > > So according to open source ideology you have to be allowed to change the > value of pi if you like? No. > I think the IETF trust approach is obviously not a problem unless people > want to make it into one. At the end of the day the only place the words in > a legal document take precedence over common sense is a court of law. Right, but the best way to stay out of that court is to pay attention to what they say. There's no conflict between what the IETF needs and what free software needs, it just happens that this particular formulation doesn't work very well for both. Scott K