Subject: [tlp-interest] Request to designate TLP Section 6 as Code Components

From: Florian Weimer <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Nov 2009 19:57:36 +0100

I would like to see the required texts in Section 6 of the TLP
designated as Code Components, so that they can be included in xml2rfc
per Section 5 of the TLP.

Who could make such a change, and who should I ask?

---

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Nov 2009 16:47:38 -0500

I do not understand this request.  Section 6 is boilerplate text, not code.

Russ

---

From: Florian Weimer <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2009 06:51:58 +0100

> I do not understand this request.  Section 6 is boilerplate text,

It has to be put into xml2rfc, as code, so that xml2rfc can be used to
produce conforming documents.

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2009 19:30:52 +1300

It doesn't need to be marked as code. Just get a mail from the Trust
telling you it's OK. The IETF is not going to sue itself for using
its own property.

IANAL, but this is a no brainer.

Regards
   Brian Carpenter

On 2009-11-04 18:51, Florian Weimer wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> tlp-interest mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tlp-interest
>

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2009 07:03:57 -0500

No, there is no needd need to designate it as code.
The use being made of it by xml2rfc is for IETF purposes.
The trust rules already grant the IETF the right to use all parts of an 
I-D or RfC for our own work.

So it is already covered, without any "code" designation.

Yours,
Joel

---

From: Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2009 14:52:34 +0100

> telling you it's OK. The IETF is not going to sue itself for using

I think the point is that xml2rfc may be distributed by others (e.g.,
Debian), and without a clear license on the material, the IETF has the
right to sue others for copyright infringement.  That situation is
rarely acceptable for free software distributions, and the alternative
is to not distribute xml2rfc at all.

/Simon

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2009 10:46:37 -0500

I really don't think there is a problem Simon.
If anyone, anywhere, builds a tool for crafting I-Ds, and in the portion 
of the tool for crafting I-Ds for the IETF, they use the words the IETF 
wants used, then it is being done for IETF pruposes, and is clearly allowed.

Now, if some other standards body needs those exact words (copyright 
applies only to exact words), then they need to talk to the trust.  But 
it is almost certain that anyone else would need different words.

So even if Debian were to distribute the xml2rfc tool, there  would 
still be no problem in using IETF boilerplate for producing I-Ds for the 
IETF.

Yours,
Joel

---

From: Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2009 16:53:53 +0100

On Wed, 2009-11-04 at 10:46 -0500, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
> applies only to exact words), then they need to talk to the trust.

What you are saying here implies that there is a problem.  Free OS
distributions needs a legal right to use those exact words, under a free
license such as the BSD license, otherwise they cannot include the work.

Since this has come up many times before, and I apparently have failed
to get this point through, please take some time and read these rules on
what Debian requires for distribution:

http://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines

/Simon

>   But

---

From: Marshall Eubanks <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2009 11:00:38 -0500

> is to not distribute xml2rfc at all.

The TLP, very deliberately, does not specify what is code. Anything  
you need to use as
code, is code, and is available as code under the Simplified BSD  
License adopted by the Trust.

It seems to me that this should be sufficient. If it can be shown that  
it isn't, we may have some work to do.

Regards
Marshall

---

From: Marshall Eubanks <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2009 11:13:40 -0500

> http://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines

That link says
Example Licenses

The GPL, BSD, and Artistic licenses are examples of licenses that we  
consider free.

-----
and links to

http://www.debian.org/misc/bsd.license

which is actually what the OSI calls the "Simplified BSD License,"  
which is what we adopted

http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php

So, I think we are OK on this basis.

Regards
Marshall

---

From: Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2009 17:18:53 +0100

> So, I think we are OK on this basis.

Did you read the first post in this thread?  This question is about
boiler plate text in section 6 of the TLP.  The IETF Trust is not using
the BSD license for that.

/Simon

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2009 11:25:16 -0500

Thinking about this further, I seen yet another reason there is no problem.

We are discussing boilerplate text.
Therefore, it will be copied verbatim.  It will not be changed.
Verbatim copying of text from RFCs is permitted already.

So, to the extent that what you are asking for is the ability to use the 
boilerplate, to produce the boilerplate in documents, it works.

I think the "problem" is that you want more than that.  You want the 
ability for that boilerplate text to be modified.  To produce derivative 
works.  To produce tools that produce other words than the boilerplate, 
but derived from the IETF boilerplate.
You want these because Debian has rules that say they need that.

If you want to ask the trust explicitly for the right to take the IETF 
booilerplate, and modify it arbitrarily, then you can ask.
But do not use the excuse of distributing a tool for producing IETF 
documents, which have to use the exact IETF boilerplate.

Yours,
Joel

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2009 08:59:24 -0800

Hi Simon,
>license such as the BSD license, otherwise they cannot include the work.

If you are trying to explain to how open source works, especially the 
social contract, good luck.

This case shows what can happen when we do a strict reading of 
copyright laws.  You are doing that and the IETF Trust is doing 
that.  However, your focus is the software whereas the IETF Trust is 
about protecting IETF assets.  There may be a way to publish the 
boilerplate as a code component without modifying the TLP.  I doubt 
that the IETF Trust would go for it as they have a different perspective.

If the IETF releases a version of the software with the text, you 
only have to see whether the software license is appropriate for Debian.

Regards,
-sm

---

From: Marshall Eubanks <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2009 12:04:25 -0500

> the BSD license for that.

Why not ?

The current TLP :

License to Code Components.
a. Definition.  IETF Contributions and IETF Documents often include  
components
intended to be directly processed by a computer (“Code Components”).   
A list of common Code
Components can be found at http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info/.

The TLP is an IETF document. If you need to use the boiler plate text  
in section 6 as or in code, that is text from an IETF
document, it is being used as code and a BSD license certainly is  
available.

Regards
Marshall

>>>>>>>> I do not understand this request.  Section 6 is boilerplate  
>>>>>>>> text,
>>>>>>>> not code.

---

From: Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2009 18:13:33 +0100

>> the BSD license for that.

Because the TLP doesn't say so.  Explicit licensing is always needed,
otherwise the default in copyright law is that no rights are granted.

> document, it is being used as code and a BSD license certainly is

That is completely contrary to what Joel just posted.  Perhaps the IETF
Trust could coordinate one response to Florian's request?

Also, text from documents doesn't become code components just because I
want to use them in code.  I believe an explicit action is needed by the
document author (the Trust in this case) to classify some text as a code
component.  That is what Florian originally asked for.

Thanks,
/Simon

---

From: Stephan Wenger <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2009 12:19:09 -0500

On 11/4/09 12:13 PM, "Simon Josefsson" <[email-masked]> wrote:

[...]
> Also, text from documents doesn't become code components just because I
want
> to use them in code.  I believe an explicit action is needed by the
document
> author (the Trust in this case) to classify some text as a code
component.
> That is what Florian originally asked for.

That should be simple to do.  The Trust could put "code markers" around the
boilerplate text in the TLP document.  Would that solve anyone's problems?

Stephan

---

From: Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2009 18:19:36 +0100

> social contract, good luck.

Yeah.  I wish the Trust would take some time to educate themselves about
the implications of free software licensing.  There is plenty of people
and organizations around to ask for help if the Trust were interested,
both the SFLC and FSF provides legal and non-legal help on licensing
matters.

> If the IETF releases a version of the software with the text, you only
> have to see whether the software license is appropriate for Debian.

Right.  Problem here is that the IETF doesn't release xml2rfc, Marshall
et al does.  Marshall (or whomever ended up doing the latest syncing)
copied the boiler plate text from the TLP into the tool, but to be able
to release the resulting work under the BSD license, the boiler plate
text needs to be available under that license too.

/Simon

---

From: Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2009 18:21:42 +0100

> boilerplate text in the TLP document.  Would that solve anyone's problems?

I believe it would.  Florian?

/Simon

---

From: Florian Weimer <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2009 18:27:52 +0100

> boilerplate text in the TLP document.  Would that solve anyone's problems?

Yes, that is what I meant with designating them as Code Components.  I
would certainly appreciate if you did this.

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2009 12:35:26 -0500

First, for clarity.  I don't speak for the trust.  I am not on the 
trust.  However, I can read the documents.

What bothers me about this, the more I think about it, is that what you 
are asking for has implications that you are not stating.

If all you wanted / needed was the ability to copy the boilerplate, 
verbatim, anywhere you wanted, you would already have it.

If all you wanted ws to have an XML2RFC that produced proper 
boilerplate, we already have that.

Tucked into this, is a request that the trust permit anyone to use their 
words as a starting point, and modify them any way they want.  That is 
what marking things a s a code component allows.

Whether that is a good thing, a bad thing, or some other dimension 
entirely, I do not know.
But if you are going to make that request of the trust, it should be 
made explicitly.  And the trust should then decide whether they want to 
allow that or not.  As far as I can tell, since those words are the 
trusts, they are the ones who have to decide if they want to give folks 
the right to modify those words (create de3rivative works.)

Yours,
Joel

---

From: Florian Weimer <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2009 18:49:46 +0100

* Joel M. Halpern:

> What bothers me about this, the more I think about it, is that what
> you are asking for has implications that you are not stating.

Huh?  How could I have been more explicit in my request?

> Tucked into this, is a request that the trust permit anyone to use
> their words as a starting point, and modify them any way they want.
> That is what marking things a s a code component allows.

Of course.  That's why I'm asking for this change.  As far as I can
tell, there aren't many other reasons why you'd want to mark something
as code component.

> made explicitly.

I explicitly asked for a designation as code components, which (as far
as I can see) is the IETF's preferred method of granting additional
permissions under copyright for selected parts of one of its
documents.  As the TLP aren't an RFC, it can be edited in-place, so I
thought I'd ask on this mailing list so that the master copy can be
updated if my request is deemed sensible.

---

From: Stephan Wenger <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2009 14:13:11 -0500

Hi,
I see no danger in allowing people to make changes to boilerplate text, for
at least four reasons: First, boilerplate is mostly read by lawyers and
folks with lawyer-like intentions (like the ones involved in this
discussion), and these people should be able to spot even small derivations
from the TLP text.  Second, any substantial change in intent to the
boilerplate is likely easily spotted, even by non-lawyers; and readers can
conclude whatever they want from these changes.  Third, it doesn't take much
to "clean-room" write up a boilerplate-like text that captures someone's
intentions and does look somewhat like out current boilerplate; there are
just too many standard legal phrases in the boilderplate to make such a
process difficult.  And fourth, I do not see that those here requesting the
change (and their friends in the so-called "open"/"free" software
communities) have any intention to abuse the IETF boilerplate text in any
way; they seem to request the marking of boilerplate as code in the TLP
exclusively for fulfilling procedural requirements of these communities.
I vote for accommodating them.
Stephan
(At the time, I was strongly supporting the current IETF position of NOT
allowing derivative work of technical content; not even to accommodate the
communities mentioned.  This remains unchanged.  Which tells you something
about the value I attribute to boilerplate text in relation to the value of
technical standards text :-)

---

From: Florian Weimer <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2009 21:08:54 +0100

> The use being made of it by xml2rfc is for IETF purposes.

As far as I can see, it's not.

> The trust rules already grant the IETF the right to use all parts of
> an I-D or RfC for our own work.

Redistributing xml2rfc as part of an operating system is not an IETF
activity as defined in RFC 5378.  (Wouldn't it make the operating
system an IETF Contribution if this were an IETF activity?)

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2009 13:56:09 -0800

Hi Simon,
>text needs to be available under that license too.

The usual disclaimer applies.  This looks like a simple request but 
it is not as simple.  The IETF Trust is only doing its duty in 
protecting the interests of the IETF.

xml2rfc is generally used to create an IETF Contribution.  The 
package could download the data (boilerplate) for offline use.  You 
don't have to worry about distribution as the source code is already 
under a BSD license.

Regards,
-sm

---

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2009 15:38:17 -0500

>produce conforming documents.

Yes, xml2rfc needs to be able to produce the boilerplate.  However, I 
still do not see it as code.  It is text that happens to be some 
constant strings in composition tools and templates to assist 
authors.  The TLP tells authors to include the boilerplate.  I agree 
with Joel's conclusion: it does not need to be designated as code for 
any author support tool to use it.

Russ

---

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 07 Nov 2009 00:57:35 -0500

John:

>Your answer is quite reasonable, but in view of the trust's apparent
>position that a single line of ABNF triggers the requirement that an
>RFC pull in the BSD license, a reasonable claim that something isn't
>code doesn't make it reassuring.

That was true under TLP 2.0, but it is not true under TLP 3.0, which 
is the current in-force version.  The new TLP boilerplate tells the 
reader to add the Simplified BSD license if they extract code:

This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 
Provisions Relating to IETF
Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the 
date of publication of this
document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe 
your rights and restrictions
with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this 
document must include
Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust 
Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the BSD License.

With this legend, the RFC does not need to include the BSD license itself.

Russ