Subject: RE: Mixing GPL and BSD licenses

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 23:50:22 -0500

Sam,

> A large vendor makes incompatible changes to an important ietf
> protocol.  They have a lot of market share.
> 
> Which world serves the Internet better?
> 
> A) The vendor cannot easily document their changes so they do not.
> 
> B) The vendor can publish a clearly labeled and modified RFC that
> documents their change.  They don't want the IETF to pick up the text
> they wrote--after all they paid expensive tech writers to write that
> text--but they'd be happy to let the world know what the change is.
> 
> In the second world the Internet is a better place.

And it's even better if the modified RFC is submitted to the IETF
as a "may only publish as an Internet-Draft" Internet-Draft as that
brings the changes to the attention of the IETF experts on the
protocol that the vendor modified.

Flipping this back over to open source, it raises an interesting
question.  I hope it's clear to everyone that GPL on RFCs (at least
for standards-track RFCs) is not a good idea because it can have
the effect of preventing use of RFC extracts by exactly the sort
of large vendors Sam envisions in his example.  Would it be
reasonable to allow GPL on Internet-Drafts submitted with the "may
only publish as a Internet-Draft" boilerplate? (i.e., if any of
the I-D text is GPL-licensed, then the I-D MUST carry the "may
only publish as an Internet-Draft" boilerplate).  This entails
some procedural changes that would have to be worked out.

That initially looks like a bizarre combination (expansive GPL
combined with restrictive I-D boilerplate), but it appears to
have the potential to allow the IETF to receive Internet-Drafts
documenting protocol changes made in open source projects that
use GPL without having to obtain any additional copyright
grants from the open source contributors, and in a fashion that
can erect a strong procedural barrier to keep GPL-licensed text
out of (at least standards-track) RFCs.  Today,  I believe GPL-
licensed text cannot be put in an Internet-Draft, because the
IETF cannot accept GPL conditions on an I-D as IETF processes
currently stand.

Thanks,
--David
----------------------------------------------------
David L. Black, Senior Technologist
EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA  01748
+1 (508) 293-7953             FAX: +1 (508) 293-7786
[email-masked]        Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754
----------------------------------------------------

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

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 14:26:34 -0500

>>>>> "Black" == Black David <[email-masked]> writes:

    Black> Sam,
    >> B) The vendor can publish a clearly labeled and modified RFC
    >> that documents their change.  They don't want the IETF to pick
    >> up the text they wrote--after all they paid expensive tech
    >> writers to write that text--but they'd be happy to let the
    >> world know what the change is.
    >> 

    Black> And it's even better if the modified RFC is submitted to
    Black> the IETF as a "may only publish as an Internet-Draft"
    Black> Internet-Draft as that brings the changes to the attention
    Black> of the IETF experts on the protocol that the vendor
    Black> modified.

Yes.  My position though is that requiring this does not serve our
goals.  I'm basically in the documenting is always better than not
documenting camp.

    Black> Flipping this back over to open source, it raises an
    Black> interesting question.  I hope it's clear to everyone that
    Black> GPL on RFCs (at least for standards-track RFCs) is not a
    Black> good idea because it can have the effect of preventing use
    Black> of RFC extracts by exactly the sort of large vendors Sam
    Black> envisions in his example.  

Yes.  Fortunately I don't think many people even in the open source
community will argue that GPL is a good license for RFCs.