Subject: Last Call for comments on "IETF Trust Legal Provisions" (dated 09-19-08)

From: "Ed Juskevicius" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 10:36:34 -0400

This message is an update for the community on the IETF Trustee's
progress towards adopting a policy on "Legal Provisions for IETF
Documents", pursuant to the last two remaining I-Ds from the IPR WG.
 
The Trustees met via telechat last Thursday.  We reviewed the draft
policy (as posted to the Trustees website on 09-08-08), plus all of the
good comments and suggestions which you posted to the IPR-WG list,
and/or sent directly to the Trustees.  Thank You!. 
 
I am pleased to report that we are almost (finally) finished.  By the
end of last week's meeting, the Trustees reached consensus on all of the
text in the draft policy except for one paragraph that describes what is
(or is not) intended with respect to the license for code components
which may be in a Contribution.   Jorge Contreras was actioned to
develop new text to clarify this.  The old text was in Section 4.c and
read as follows:
 
>    c.  License.  When Code Components are copied, published,
> displayed or distributed as part of a document that is intended
> to be read or referenced by persons, and not for direct
> processing by a computer, they are licensed under the terms set
> forth in Section 3 of these Legal Provisions.  When Code
> Components are copied, published, displayed or distributed for
> direct processing by a computer, they are hereby licensed to
> each person who wishes to receive such a license on the terms
> of the "BSD License"....
 
There has been a lot of discussion on the list about the intended
meaning of the above words.  As a result, the last item on the Trustee's
work plan for the policy is to reach closure on unambiguous text for
Section 4.c.
 
The intent is to clearly identify that code components, if extracted
from an IETF Contribution or an IETF Document under the terms of the BSD
license as set forth in Section 4.c, may be freely modified and that the
code and those modifications are unrestricted with respect to how they
can be used and distributed.  This is important because we understand
that code components taken from IETF documents are to be treated
differently from what can be done with any other text extracted from
IETF Contributions and IETF Documents.
 
The following paragraph contains the new text which we are now proposing
to replace the old wording (from above). 
 
  c.  License.  In addition to the licenses granted under Section 3,
Code Components are also licensed to each person who wishes to receive
such a license on the terms of the "BSD License" (
http://opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php ), as described below.
If a licensee elects to apply the BSD License to a Code Component, then
the additional licenses and restrictions set forth in Section 3 and
elsewhere in these Legal Provisions shall not apply thereto. 

** Do these new words for Section 4.c convey our meaning clearly, and
(equally importantly) do they reflect the consensus of the community?
Please let us know.  
 
The Trustees want to reach closure on this within the next two weeks.
We want to adopt a policy we can all use starting October 2008.
 
Please view this message as the last call for comments.  A complete
version of the proposed policy, including the new text for Section 4.c
has been posted to the Trustee's website at:
http://trustee.ietf.org/policyandprocedures.html .  The vintage of the
documents being last-called is 09-19-08.

Best Regards, and Thanks in advance,

Ed  Juskevicius, on behalf of the Trustees
[email-masked] 
_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

---

From: Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 18:29:03 +0200

> elsewhere in these Legal Provisions shall not apply thereto.

This new text appears fine, thanks, however one change has been made
since I read its draft form.  This is not a show stopper, but adding to
license proliferation is consider bad form in some communities.

A URL has been added, and gives the impression that the license shown in
the document is the verbatim, opensource.org approved, BSD license.
That isn't the case.

I suggest to move the URL later in the document and say, for example,
"The license used here is derived from
[http://opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php]".

Alternatively, the document could use the verbatim BSD license for code
components.  I suggested to use the verbatim BSD license in my earlier
comments on the legal provisions document, so you may have already
decided against doing that.  I thought it prudent to repeat this
alternative though, since I believe it is a better option.

For completeness, below is a wdiff between the IETF-BSD license and the
verbatim BSD license as reviewed and approved by OSI.  Note that using a
modified version of the BSD license may cause organizations such as OSI
to spend lawyer-time to evaluate whether this particular license variant
is compatible with other licenses.

/Simon

Copyright (c) <YEAR>, [-<OWNER>-] {+IETF Trust and the persons identified as its authors.+}
All rights reserved.

Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are
met:

* Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
  notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.

* Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
  notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
  documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.

* Neither the name of [-the <ORGANIZATION>-] {+Internet Society, IETF or IETF Trust,+} nor the
  names of [-its
  contributors-] {+specific contributors,+} may be used to endorse or promote
  products derived from this software without specific prior written
  permission.
_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

---

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 12:59:35 -0400

Simon:

I read it to say "BSD License to Code Components"  and that the other 
limitations from Section 3 do not apply to the code components.  It 
is my understanding that is the exact recommendation of the IPR WG.

Russ

---

From: Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 19:06:08 +0200

My point was merely that the license for code components in the document
is not the exact word-for-word BSD license as reviewed by OSI and other
organizations.  I am sorry if this wasn't clear in my comment.  I am
thankful that the text is now clear that the section 3 license does not
apply to code components.

/Simon

Russ Housley <[email-masked]> writes:

> limitations from Section 3 do not apply to the code components.  It is
> my understanding that is the exact recommendation of the IPR WG.
>
> Russ
>
>

---

From: "Contreras, Jorge" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 13:11:13 -0400

I believe that users of the BSD License are supposed to substitute words
like "OWNER" with their specific names, and that changes like this are
not viewed as "changes" to the license. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] 
> [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Simon Josefsson
> Sent: Monday, September 22, 2008 1:06 PM
> To: Russ Housley
> Cc: [email-masked]; Ed Juskevicius
> Subject: Re: Last Call for comments on "IETF Trust Legal 
> Provisions" (dated09-19-08)
>

---

From: "TS Glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 10:38:15 -0700

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Contreras, Jorge" <[email-masked]>
To: "Simon Josefsson" <[email-masked]>; "Russ Housley" 
<[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>; "Ed Juskevicius" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, September 22, 2008 10:11 AM
Subject: RE: Last Call for comments on "IETF Trust Legal 
Provisions"(dated09-19-08)

> not viewed as "changes" to the license.

Hmmm - anything that would rewrite the license as a new document - and that 
changes any part of the terms and conditions would also have to be agreed 
upon by the original licensors for each derivative released. So ... this 
creates a who world of pain in having to notify and then release each new 
use.

Todd
>> >>   products derived from this software without specific

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.169 / Virus Database: 270.7.0/1684 - Release Date: 9/22/2008 
6:39 AM

---

From: "TS Glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 10:35:33 -0700

How will you track which version of the BSD license it refers to?

Todd Glassey
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Russ Housley" <[email-masked]>
To: "Simon Josefsson" <[email-masked]>; "Ed Juskevicius" 
<[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, September 22, 2008 9:59 AM
Subject: Re: Last Call for comments on "IETF Trust Legal Provisions"(dated 
09-19-08)

---

From: Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 20:44:39 +0200

> How will you track which version of the BSD license it refers to?

As far as I know, the BSD license does not have a version number.  There
are different variations of the BSD license in use (e.g., 2-clause,
3-clause and 4-clause BSD) though.

/Simon

---

From: "TS Glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 12:32:27 -0700

That's the point - if the IETF's contract references externally set Terms 
and Conditions, then those T&Cs must be included in a way with the IETF's 
use license so that

    1)    All of the licensing issues are disclosed
    2)    All of the derivative or included code samples are done in a 
manner which enables their use or at least reference in the process of 
creating the interoperability model that the IETF mandates
    3)   From a historical standpoint - all of the appropriate terms and 
conditions can be shown to be effective and in place.

Todd Glassey

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Simon Josefsson" <[email-masked]>
To: "TS Glassey" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, September 22, 2008 11:44 AM
Subject: Re: Last Call for comments on "IETF Trust Legal Provisions"(dated 
09-19-08)

---

From: Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 23:44:26 +0200

"TS Glassey" <[email-masked]> writes:

> That's the point - if the IETF's contract references externally set
> Terms and Conditions,

It doesn't.  The license that applies to code is quoted explicitly in
the IETF Legal Provisions.  The license is derived from the BSD license.

/Simon

> then those T&Cs must be included in a way with the IETF's use
> license so that
>
>    3)   From a historical standpoint - all of the appropriate terms
> and conditions can be shown to be effective and in place.
>
> Todd Glassey
>
> Provisions"(dated 09-19-08)
>
>
> Version: 8.0.169 / Virus Database: 270.7.0/1684 - Release Date:
> 9/22/2008 6:39 AM

---

From: "TS Glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 14:59:44 -0700

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Simon Josefsson" <[email-masked]>
To: "TS Glassey" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, September 22, 2008 2:44 PM
Subject: Re: Last Call for comments on "IETF Trust Legal Provisions"(dated 
09-19-08)

> the IETF Legal Provisions.

No the BSD license pertains to any BSD licensed code or words which are 
included in the IETF publication. It cannot be expanded on to meet the "Any 
and All Uses" language without a formal transactiojn with the BSD folks.

> The license is derived from the BSD license.

Yes BUT it MUST not be any more than a subset of the incoming license. So 
the issue becomes one of whether BSD-licensed content can be relicensed by 
the IETF for ANY and ALL uses... or not.

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.169 / Virus Database: 270.7.0/1685 - Release Date: 9/22/2008 
4:08 PM

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2008 19:21:57 +0200

On 2008-09-22 16:36 Ed Juskevicius said the following:
...
> documents being last-called is 09-19-08.

I just checked this again, to verify the text from the viewpoint of updating
idnits, and this version looks OK to me from that viewpoint.  Good.

However, I then imagined including the boilerplate text in a draft of mine,
and realized that although I have a fair grasp of english, I'm not really
comfortable with the phrase 'pursuant to', in this boilerplate text:

	"This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF pursuant to, and in full
	 conformance with, the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79."

Well, there are dictionaries, so look it up, man! I think to myself.  However,
doing so does not result in improved understanding.  I find this:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pursuant+to :

	: in carrying out : in conformity with : according to

http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=pursuant :

	S: (adj) pursuant ((followed by `to') in conformance to or agreement
	with) "pursuant to our agreement"; "pursuant to the dictates of one's
	conscience"

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/pursuant :

	1. in conformance to, or in agreement with

... but the boilerplate already says 'in full conformance with', so what
meaning does "pursuant to" add??  Could we simply strike it?  Or if 'pursuant
to' indeed adds meaning and information over 'in full conformance with',
can that added meaning be expressed in a less legalese manner?

I really like to understand what the conditions actually are when I commit
myself to something, and right now I don't really know what this boilerplate
is saying, unless 'pursuant to' is superfluous (in which case it should go).

	Henrik

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2008 09:27:00 +1300

I agree. 'pursuant to' seems to add nothing. It's archaic
language and will only confuse the worldwide community.

   Brian

---

From: "Contreras, Jorge" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2008 16:29:46 -0400

I have no objection to removing "pursuant to". 

> From: [email-masked] 
> [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Brian E Carpenter
> Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2008 4:27 PM
> To: Henrik Levkowetz
> Cc: Trustees; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [Trustees] Last Call for comments on "IETF Trust 
> Legal Provisions" (dated 09-19-08)
> 
> Trustees mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trustees
>