headers
Frank Ellermann | 20 Nov 2006 17:20
Picon
Picon

Re: CLARIFICATION: language about copyright notices

Scott W Brim wrote:

> Clarification comes before discussion ...

>> 5) Language about copyright notices
>> Wordsmithed result: "Documents should not contain text that seems to
>> restrict the IETF-granted rights to use the documents". Such text may
>> be license text or copyright text beyond the standard IETF text.

The "NDW is evil" side is clear, but could an author use CC-BY-SA ?  

I vaguely recall that John was also interested in CC-BY-ND, but maybe I
confuse that with something else he wrote here months ago.

Frank
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Harald Alvestrand | 20 Nov 2006 22:19
Picon

Re: CLARIFICATION: language about copyright notices


--On 20. november 2006 17:20 +0100 Frank Ellermann 
<nobody <at> xyzzy.claranet.de> wrote:

> Scott W Brim wrote:
>
>> Clarification comes before discussion ...
>
>>> 5) Language about copyright notices
>>> Wordsmithed result: "Documents should not contain text that seems to
>>> restrict the IETF-granted rights to use the documents". Such text may
>>> be license text or copyright text beyond the standard IETF text.
>
> The "NDW is evil" side is clear, but could an author use CC-BY-SA ?
>
> I vaguely recall that John was also interested in CC-BY-ND, but maybe I
> confuse that with something else he wrote here months ago.

It's clear (at least it was stated again in San Diego, and nobody 
disagreed) that an author can make a separate copy of his (sole) 
contribution and license that under another license (such as GPL, CC-BY-SA 
or CC-BY-ND) if he wants to, in addition to the copy he licenses to the 
IETF under IETF rules.

Comparing the specific terms of CC-BY-SA and CC-BY-ND to the desired 
properties of the licensing to or from the IETF to the community is a 
matter for lawyers - which we are leaving out of this draft text.

                      Harald
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Frank Ellermann | 26 Nov 2006 14:18
Picon
Picon

Re: CLARIFICATION: language about copyright notices

Harald Alvestrand wrote:

> It's clear (at least it was stated again in San Diego, and nobody
> disagreed) that an author can make a separate copy of his (sole)
> contribution and license that under another license (such as GPL,
> CC-BY-SA or CC-BY-ND) if he wants to, in addition to the copy he
> licenses to the IETF under IETF rules.

One practical case isn't exactly a "separate copy", it is the XML
source for xml2rfc, example:

<!-- no I-D - >
    <?rfc private="Creative Commons License:      Attributions + ShareAlike" ?>
    <?rfc header="Interim draft" ?>
    <?rfc footer="draft-foo-bar-02" ?>
<! - no I-D -->

In the working draft (-03) I'd use "-->" instead of "- >",  and
"<!--" instead of "<! -" resulting in a file without IETF-legalese.

It has no interesting code, only some ABNF, and of course anybody
is free to use or adapt it as it pleases them.  But they're IMO
not free to _sell_ modified versions via SSOs (*) like say ISO, if
the only way to get their modification is to buy it back from them.

Not without the explicit permission of the authors.  Some authors
likely don't care, others might be happy if IASA manages it, and a
third group might prefer to decide it personally on a case by case
base.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Brian E Carpenter | 21 Nov 2006 09:27
Picon
Favicon

Re: CLARIFICATION: language about copyright notices

Harald Alvestrand wrote:
> 
> 
> --On 20. november 2006 17:20 +0100 Frank Ellermann 
> <nobody <at> xyzzy.claranet.de> wrote:
> 
>> Scott W Brim wrote:
>>
>>> Clarification comes before discussion ...
>>
>>
>>>> 5) Language about copyright notices
>>>> Wordsmithed result: "Documents should not contain text that seems to
>>>> restrict the IETF-granted rights to use the documents". Such text may
>>>> be license text or copyright text beyond the standard IETF text.
>>
>>
>> The "NDW is evil" side is clear, but could an author use CC-BY-SA ?
>>
>> I vaguely recall that John was also interested in CC-BY-ND, but maybe I
>> confuse that with something else he wrote here months ago.
> 
> 
> It's clear (at least it was stated again in San Diego, and nobody 
> disagreed) that an author can make a separate copy of his (sole) 
> contribution and license that under another license (such as GPL, 
> CC-BY-SA or CC-BY-ND) if he wants to, in addition to the copy he 
> licenses to the IETF under IETF rules.

I want to argue that a bit more closely to make sure it really is
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Harald Alvestrand | 21 Nov 2006 12:45
Picon

Re: CLARIFICATION: language about copyright notices


--On 21. november 2006 09:27 +0100 Brian E Carpenter <brc <at> zurich.ibm.com> 
wrote:

> If I write a piece of code and first insert it in an I-D and then
> post the I-D under standard IPR conditions, and next day insert
> the same piece of code in an open source package, those two
> copies will be under two different IPR regimes. The first copy
> is under the IETF regime and the second copy is under the
> open source regime. And there should be no problem for either side.
>
> So, it's vital that this fork occurs *before* the code is placed
> under an open source license, IMO.

Nit: I think I disagree on the timing - the open source license is not a 
copyright assignment, so the author still has the right to submit the code 
to the IETF.
But he can't take anyone else's incompatibly licensed code and hand it to 
the IETF, so accepting patches that are copyright and incompatibly licensed 
will create a tangled mess; handing off the "IETF copy" first avoids this.

                    Harald
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Brian E Carpenter | 21 Nov 2006 13:08
Picon
Favicon

Re: CLARIFICATION: language about copyright notices

Harald Alvestrand wrote:
> 
> 
> --On 21. november 2006 09:27 +0100 Brian E Carpenter 
> <brc <at> zurich.ibm.com> wrote:
> 
>> If I write a piece of code and first insert it in an I-D and then
>> post the I-D under standard IPR conditions, and next day insert
>> the same piece of code in an open source package, those two
>> copies will be under two different IPR regimes. The first copy
>> is under the IETF regime and the second copy is under the
>> open source regime. And there should be no problem for either side.
>>
>> So, it's vital that this fork occurs *before* the code is placed
>> under an open source license, IMO.
> 
> 
> Nit: I think I disagree on the timing - the open source license is not a 
> copyright assignment, so the author still has the right to submit the 
> code to the IETF.

Yes, the key issue is that you can't take code from an open source
*distribution* into an I-D; you are correct that the restriction
is on the fork being *logically* prior to the open source license,
not on the chronological sequence.

> But he can't take anyone else's incompatibly licensed code and hand it 
> to the IETF, so accepting patches that are copyright and incompatibly 
> licensed will create a tangled mess; handing off the "IETF copy" first 
> avoids this.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Simon Josefsson | 21 Nov 2006 13:47
Favicon
Gravatar

Re: CLARIFICATION: language about copyright notices

Brian E Carpenter <brc <at> zurich.ibm.com> writes:

> Harald Alvestrand wrote:
>>
>>
>> --On 21. november 2006 09:27 +0100 Brian E Carpenter
>> <brc <at> zurich.ibm.com> wrote:
>>
>>> If I write a piece of code and first insert it in an I-D and then
>>> post the I-D under standard IPR conditions, and next day insert
>>> the same piece of code in an open source package, those two
>>> copies will be under two different IPR regimes. The first copy
>>> is under the IETF regime and the second copy is under the
>>> open source regime. And there should be no problem for either side.
>>>
>>> So, it's vital that this fork occurs *before* the code is placed
>>> under an open source license, IMO.
>>
>>
>> Nit: I think I disagree on the timing - the open source license is
>> not a copyright assignment, so the author still has the right to
>> submit the code to the IETF.
>
> Yes, the key issue is that you can't take code from an open source
> *distribution* into an I-D; you are correct that the restriction
> is on the fork being *logically* prior to the open source license,
> not on the chronological sequence.

That assumes the I-D author isn't the author of the code in the
particular distribution.  That assumption doesn't hold generally.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Brian E Carpenter | 23 Nov 2006 09:10
Picon
Favicon

Re: CLARIFICATION: language about copyright notices

Simon Josefsson wrote:
> Brian E Carpenter <brc <at> zurich.ibm.com> writes:
> 
> 
>>Harald Alvestrand wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>--On 21. november 2006 09:27 +0100 Brian E Carpenter
>>><brc <at> zurich.ibm.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>If I write a piece of code and first insert it in an I-D and then
>>>>post the I-D under standard IPR conditions, and next day insert
>>>>the same piece of code in an open source package, those two
>>>>copies will be under two different IPR regimes. The first copy
>>>>is under the IETF regime and the second copy is under the
>>>>open source regime. And there should be no problem for either side.
>>>>
>>>>So, it's vital that this fork occurs *before* the code is placed
>>>>under an open source license, IMO.
>>>
>>>
>>>Nit: I think I disagree on the timing - the open source license is
>>>not a copyright assignment, so the author still has the right to
>>>submit the code to the IETF.
>>
>>Yes, the key issue is that you can't take code from an open source
>>*distribution* into an I-D; you are correct that the restriction
>>is on the fork being *logically* prior to the open source license,
>>not on the chronological sequence.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |

Gmane