Subject: Counter proposal to draft-ietf-ipr-rules-update-00.txt

From: Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2005 15:31:44 +0200

Hi all!  I am preparing a counter-proposal to
draft-ietf-ipr-rules-update-00.txt.  I explain the two problems with
BCP78 that I have identified that face free and open source software
authors.  I'm also developing the new proposed legal text at:

http://josefsson.org/bcp78broken/

I'll submit the result as an I-D during the next week or so.

The page also include a petition, if you want to indicate support of
this effort.  Please sign the petition if you agree with the problem
statement, or generally believe BCP78 causes problems for free and
open source software and that the WG should attempt to fix it.

Thanks,
Simon

_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2005 16:38:55 +0200

Simon Josefsson wrote:

> I'm also developing the new proposed legal text at:

Seconded, please shrink the new boilerplate to something
like "CC BY SA" for those who want it.  For difficult
cases a 3978bis trying to define the absolutely minimal
rights required by the RfC-editor is okay, but then it
should at least offer a human readable version in addition
to the US centric legalese of 3978.  If that's what it is,
actually I have no idea what 3978 really does.  

Two examples:

http://article.gmane.org/gmane.text.xml.rfc/414
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.text.xml.rfc/415

Apparently (IANAL) there's a provision in 3978 especially
for "RfC editor submissions" not used by the RfC editor (?)

http://article.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.rfc.interest/25
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.ipr/2760

With s/3987/3978/ I've still no idea what 3978 says (or
tries to say) in its clauses 3.3 C or 4.2 C.  Maybe it's
essentially the same as CC BY SA, and then it's fine for
my POV.  But it could be also some kind of "EULA" for the
RfC authors, and then they are doomed whatever they do.

> Please sign the petition if you agree with the problem
> statement, or generally believe BCP78 causes problems for
> free and open source software and that the WG should
> attempt to fix it.

I can't sign it, because I'm unable to judge what RfC 3978
really does.  Vague impression:  It tries to protect the
IETF and/or the RfC editor, and it tries to get away with
the minimal rights required for this purpose in the US.

But what does this mean for the authors and the readers ?

                            Bye, Frank
-- 
Readers are advised to consult their own legal advisors if they
would like a legal interpretation of their rights or the rights
of the IETF in any Contributions they make.  (RfC 3979 ch. 2)

---

From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 18:01:38 -0400

>open source software and that the WG should attempt to fix it.
Please note that a petition has no place in the IETF process.  It's 
clear that I'll have to issue a formal request to the WG for consensus 
on this issue, but I cannot and will not take a petition into account.

RFC 2418, Sections 3.2 and 3.3 specifically discuss the role of mailing
lists in forming and assessing consensus.  There is nothing in there 
about petitions.  Less legalistically, the consensus is supposed to be 
of the WG members.  People who parachute in from the outside (or, worse 
yet, just sign their names to a petition) haven't participated in the 
discussion and have missed the opportunity to hear the other side of 
the issue.

It's clear that I'm going to have to organize a formal consensus call 
on this point.  I'm currently discussing the issue with the AD.

		--Steven M. Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb