On 2/24/2010 2:08 PM, Simon Wilkinson wrote: > Whilst I've been working on consolidating all of the AFS RPC refresh > proposals, I've come across what I believe is a general problem with the > copyright of our existing XG files, and the internet draft process. > > Our XG files, as with most of the rest of OpenAFS, are distributed under the > IBM public license, and copyright IBM + contributors. As far as my woefully > limited knowledge of copyright law goes, any derivatives of these RPCs would > have to be under a similar license. > > This means that I (as a document author) cannot grant to the IETF Trust any > of the provisions required by RFC5738. Now, we're in theory targeting the > Independent stream with our documents, so this may not be an issue, although > many of the tools I have tried don't support documents without 5738 > boilerplate particularly well. > > Finally, it does raise the question of what the copyright of the finished > document actually is. Is the new standardisation document, in effect, a > derivative of the original XG files, and so IPL'd? Are the XDR and RPC > descriptions contained within that document under the IPL, and so unusable by > GPL (or commercial) implementors? > > Sorry to open this can of worms... > > Simon.
Simon has a very valid point but before folks who are not lawyers try to make a justification for what can or cannot be done I am going to let you know that IP lawyers are being asked and once I have an opinion I will share it. The IPL 1.0 specifically applies to derivative works and an I-D that includes source code that extends the protocol definition would be a derived work. The U.S. courts have ruled several times that interface procedures whether obtained by fair use disassembly of object code or when published source code function prototypes in header files are not covered by copyright and as a result any assigned license would not apply. The question is whether or not such reasoning would cover the RPC definitions specified in .xg files. I suspect an attorney could make a reasonable argument in favor of removal of the Copyright and IPL 1.0 from these files. However, I want such an opinion. In addition, I am raising this issue with IBM to see whether they would be willing to grant permission to remove the Copyright and LICENSE so that it is not an issue that would ever be taken to court. I will provide updates as I have them. Jeffrey Altman
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ AFS3-standardization mailing list [email protected] http://michigan-openafs-lists.central.org/mailman/listinfo/afs3-standardization
