>>>>> "John" == John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> writes:
John> As I have been trying to explain in a different context to
John> Scott Kitterman, I suspect we agree in everything but language
John> and tone. Certainly it is not in the IETF's best interest to
John> prevent reasonable software that enables template-filling-in
John> software from being written.
I'd go beyond that and say that I want to be able to write open-source
software or free-software that accomplishes that goal.
Both of those are terms with specific definitions.
I want to be able to include such software in Debian GNU/Linux, I want
to be able to include such software in Fedora.
In order to do so, the software needs to be open-source/free-software.
That's how those communities work.
John> I personally contend that it is
John> also not in the IETF's best interest to encourage, or even
John> allow, modifications to templates that would permit
John> misrepresentation of the results or, more importantly, would
John> facilitate the creation of filled-in templates that IANA, for
John> example, would reject because they were inconsistent with the
John> templates specified for a given registry.
John> I don't see those two objectives as being inconsistent in any
John> way.
I do.
If you remove the word allow from the above, we're in agreement.
In particular, I think the IETF should discourage such modifications.
However, the fundamental principle behind free software, and a huge
component of open-source software (if not a fundamental principle) is to
allow modification of every aspect of the software.
I see it as inherently inconsistent to disallow modifications while
requiring modifications be allowed.
John> You and Scott (and probably others) apparently believe we have
John> gotten into exactly the situation in which the community's
John> intent about the first principle is being blocked by the
John> Trust's langauge. I don't think I have a competent opinion on
John> the subject although it occurs to me that, if we are getting
John> hung up on what "exact copy" means, some long-term review of
John> the licenses you cite may be in order too.
for your review:
http://opensource.org/osd-annotated
https://www.debian.org/social_contract
https://www.debian.org/social_contract
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=92810 (older bug
discussing why IETF documents are problematic for free-software prior to
current BCPs)
The current BCPs make the problem significantly worse.
John> But I hope the three of us could join in asking the Trust and
John> its Counsel to work directly with the relevant people
John> associated with the licenses you cite to come up with
John> mutually-acceptable language.
Nod. I'm happy to engage within Debian.
For example if you'd like us to come up with an official statement that
forbidding modifications of the templates makes them something we
cannot include, I could do that. I am sure that would be an easy
consensus to achieve, although there might be some disagreement on who
should send such a statement or how to approve it.
I believe I could also help facilitate contact with the Free Software
Foundation. I don't personally know folks at the Open Source Initiative
(or at least don't know that I know them) but I'm sure we could find
them and engage them.
John> IMO, if we can't sort this out without a lot more pain and
John> aggravation, we _really_ need to consider going back to some
John> reasonable approximation to "acknowledge, be clear about
John> changes, but otherwise do what you like with RFCs". That may
John> not be the only reasonable answer, but, IMO, the cost of these
John> discussions is rising above the benefits of more restrictive
John> and precise policies.
I'd strongly support this; I've always supported a less restrictive
approach.