Subject: Comments on draft-ietf-ipr-rules-update-01

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2005 18:56:37 -0500 (EST)

Hi.  I strongly agree with section 3 of draft-ietf-ipr-rules-update.
I believe the IETF needs the right to grant preparation of derivative
works.  If nothing else, we should adopt this right as soon as
possible.

Speaking as an implementer, the rights in section 2 do not meet my
needs for extracting source code or other tables from RFCs.

While my product is an open-source product, it is not the open-source
concerns that would be the major problem.  my product is used in
operating systems from several major vendors; many of these vendors
make closed-source distributions of my product.

They would not accept source code provided by me to them released
under the license of section 2 of the rules update draft.

One of the obvious reasons they would not do so is security updates If
there is a security flaw found in this source code, they would need
the ability to modify that security code in order to fix the security
flaw in their product.  It would be irresponsible to block waiting for
the IETF to publish a new rfc or internet draft in order to fix a
security update.  An internet draft might be inappropriate because the
nature of the required change may not be public.

There are other reasons why vendors need the right to prepare
derivative works of code in their implementations.

I also support the open-source arguments.  however I want to send this
message to argue that we've got three categories of people for whom
the proposed rules don't work.  It doesn't work for organizations like
Debian who have strong free software requirements.  It doesn't work
for the general open-source community like FreeBSD.  It doesn't even
make sense for closed-source vendors.

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