--On Tuesday, July 13, 2010 10:38:14 PM -0400 Marcus Watts <[email protected]>
wrote:
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2010 22:23:34 BST
To: Marcus Watts <[email protected]>
cc: [email protected]
From: Simon Wilkinson <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [AFS3-std] Consensus Call - AFS3-Standardization Charter
On 13 Jul 2010, at 22:05, Marcus Watts wrote:
> 3. The copyright thing seems overly onerous. It also seems largely
> derived from section 5 of BCP 78. Except for E, which seems to
> be unique to this document. Can this really be an invitation to
> document features with i386 machine language? Regardless, I think
> this is overly prescriptive.
We did this to death in July 2008. Essentially, our hands are slightly =
tied by our desire to use the Independent Submissions process for our =
document series. Essentially, that requires that we use a defined =
copyright boiler plate, although it permits us to add additional =
clauses. Russ raised the issue that AFS standards documents should be =
freely redistributable which clause E), which came from Jeffrey H, aims =
to resolve. If you're interested in more of the background, I'd advise =
reading the list archives from that month.
Cheers,
Simon.
Yes, you did this "to death". But the question here is not who
wants to enter the steel cage of death, but what did we think of
the result that came out.
What Simon is saying is that this issue has already been discussed quite
extensively, and you would be wise to review that discussion before
attempting to revisit it from scratch.
The "freely" redistribution is quite noble and good, but that's
not a independent submissions process requirement, that's an
additional requirement you've added. In the text you got
from jhutz, the "freely" redistributable part is already in the
preamble and in section C. B could be folded into C by removing
the "other than translations" clause. E merely duplicates C, then
adds patent text that's not copyright, and is most likely already
covered by the bcp 78 submissions process. Of course, if
you actually wanted "freely usable", and not just "freely
redistributable" you might not want this patent clause.
We're likely going to have to have an extensive discussion about exactly
what we want to do with IPR issues on afs3-stds submissions. Among other
things, since this document was drafted, the IETF has learned some things
about what works and what doesn't and where some of the pitfalls are.
BCP78 and the particular set of rights grants required for both IETF and
independent submissions have changed in the interim.
I want to stress that what the registrars are looking for right now is
buy-in from the community for the process in general and the elections
process in particular, so we can proceed with elections. We're _not_
looking for formal adoption of all the particulars and especially the
details of how IPR is handled -- that will be one of the group's first
tasks once we have chairs. So, while I'm absolutely not trying to cut off
this discussion, I'm not expecting to see a quick consensus on the IPR
provisions and am not planning on treating lack of such as a bar to
conducting an election.
So the question I'll ask at this point is whether the umich copyright
I've been adding to my contributions meets this standard?
The requirement as written is that every submission include the specific
text from the document, or a reference to it. So no, including some other
copyright instead does not satisfy the requirement. This is fairly
important, because it means that everyone knows that everyone participating
is granting the required rights on their submissions, instead of having to
evaluate a new copyright from every contributor.
-- Jeff
_______________________________________________
AFS3-standardization mailing list
[email protected]
http://michigan-openafs-lists.central.org/mailman/listinfo/afs3-standardization
