Subject: #1400 Opinion poll - PLEASE REPLY

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2006 13:32:44 +0100

This is it:

We have two alternative formulations suggested for section 5.3 of the 
draft. The change is in the second paragraph.

1) Original:

   IETF contributions often include components intended to be directly
   processed by a computer.  These may be ABNF definitions, XML Schemas
   or DTDs, MIBs, or even classical programming code.  These are include
   for clarity and precision in specification.  It is clearly
   beneficial, when such items are included in IETF contributions, to
   permit the inclusion of such code fragments in products which
   implement the contribution.  It has been pointed out that in several
   important contexts, use of such code requires the ability to modify
   the code.  One common example of this is simply the need to adapt
   code for use in specific contexts (languages, compilers, tool
   systems, etc.)  Such use frequently requires some changes to the text
   of the code from the IETF contribution.  Another example is that code
   included in open source products is frequently licensed to permit any
   and all of the code to be modified.  Since we want this code included
   in such products, it follows that we need to permit such
   modification.  While there has been discussion of restricting the
   rights to make such modifications in some way, the rough consensus is
   that such restrictions are likely a bad idea, and are certainly very
   complex to define.

   As such, the rough consensus is that code components of IETF
   contributions can be extracted, modified, and used by anyone in any
   way desired.

2) Reformulation:

   IETF contributions often include components intended to be directly
   processed by a computer.  These may be ABNF definitions, XML Schemas
   or DTDs, MIBs, or even classical programming code.  These are include
   for clarity and precision in specification.  It is clearly
   beneficial, when such items are included in IETF contributions, to
   permit the inclusion of such code fragments in products which
   implement the contribution.  It has been pointed out that in several
   important contexts, use of such code requires the ability to modify
   the code.  One common example of this is simply the need to adapt
   code for use in specific contexts (languages, compilers, tool
   systems, etc.)  Such use frequently requires some changes to the text
   of the code from the IETF contribution.  Another example is that code
   included in open source products is frequently licensed to permit any
   and all of the code to be modified.  Since we want this code included
   in such products, it follows that we need to permit such
   modification.  While there has been discussion of restricting the
   rights to make such modifications in some way, the rough consensus is
   that such restrictions are likely a bad idea, and are certainly very
   complex to define.

   As such, the rough consensus is that code components of IETF
   contributions can be extracted, modified, and used by anyone
   worldwide.

   Drafts and RFCs MAY state that substantial
   modifications based on the published code have to be
   "shared alike", i.e. published with a similar proviso.

There were 14 people who stated at the San Diego meeting that they were
part of a consensus for the first version. While the second alternative 
was not explicitly put on the table in San Diego, I think the debate has 
been circling around the issue long enough that it's reasonable to 
consider these 14 as not supporting the second - but it's better to ask 
than to blindly assume that. So I'll give more than two alternatives:

A) I stated a preference in San Diego, and prefer version 1
B) I stated a preference in San Diego, but prefer version 2
C) I did not state a preference in San Diego, and prefer version 1
D) I did not state a preference in San Diego, and prefer version 2
E) I have another opinion, which is...

Please reply with a message stating which (single) alternative you agree 
with. If you wish to reply privately for less list traffic, you can send 
your answer to the chairs. The list of names will be included in the 
summary; your opinion will be known by others.

                       Harald, for the chairs

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

---

From: Scott W Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2006 07:55:44 -0500

D

>   or DTDs, MIBs, or even classical programming code.  These are include

--> these are includeD

---

From: Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2006 15:22:14 +0100

> D) I did not state a preference in San Diego, and prefer version 2

I prefer D).

/Simon

---

From: "David B Harrington" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2006 09:21:39 -0500

C

dbh 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Harald Alvestrand [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2006 7:33 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: #1400 Opinion poll - PLEASE REPLY
> 
> This is it:
>

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2006 09:34:37 -0500

A.

---

From: "Lawrence Rosen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2006 08:54:33 -0800

C) I did not state a preference in San Diego, and prefer version 1.

...With the proviso that any distinction between code and text is
unnecessary and a waste of time.

/Larry Rosen

> Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2006 4:33 AM
> To: [email-masked]

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2006 20:06:29 +0100

B

> B) I stated a preference in San Diego, but prefer version 2

	Henrik

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2006 16:55:02 -0500

> C) I did not state a preference in San Diego, and prefer version 1

My concern with version 2 is that the devil is in the details of
precisely what "share alike" and "similar" actually mean.

It's easier & simpler to just not have this debate.

Thanks,
--David

---

From: Don Armstrong <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2006 14:50:34 -0800

> C) I did not state a preference in San Diego, and prefer version 1

[We really should also move on to dealing with the incoming rights
issue as well.]

Don Armstrong

-- 
He was wrong. Nature abhors dimensional abnormalities, and seals them
neatly away so that they don't upset people. Nature, in fact, abhors a
lot of things, including vacuums, ships called the Marie Celeste, and
the chuck keys for electric drills.
 -- Terry Pratchet _Pyramids_ p166

http://www.donarmstrong.com              http://rzlab.ucr.edu

---

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2006 05:09:43 +0100

> This is it:

I forgot to specify a time limit for replying....

I'll count up the responses one week from the poll request, on or after 
December 14, 13:32 +0100 (CET).

            Harald

---

From: "Powers Chuck-RXCP20" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2006 07:53:42 -0500

C - I was not able to participate in the San Diego meeting.

rgds,

Chuck

> Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2006 6:33 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> There were 14 people who stated at the San Diego meeting that 
> they were part of a consensus for the first version. While 
> the second alternative

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 08:06:46 -0800

Harald the language of the reformulation is also wrong...But that's OK we
can fix it.

And as a comment - ANY file which is transferred through a computer
including text files would qualify and there is little differentiation
therein. That said I propose a simple one paragraph fix.

How about:
----------------
"IETF contributions may include Text Alone, Formatted Text, or other
inclusions meant to be interpreted by a computer or computing device. The
purpose of the IETF's licensing to its relying parties is to allow relying
parties to use these Standard's Design and those examples shown in their own
products freely.  The IETF thus authorizes the relying parties to use and
develop derivatives of these contributions as their implementation of this
IETF Standard from those sample programs or excerpts therein"
----------------

So let me ask -Why bother giving it more detail than this - that entire
statement is totally handled in the above??? Keep the policy short and
applicable to the issue - the content of submissions.

T.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Powers Chuck-RXCP20" <[email-masked]>
To: "Harald Alvestrand" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, December 08, 2006 4:53 AM
Subject: RE: #1400 Opinion poll - PLEASE REPLY

rgds,

Chuck