Jason Edgecombe <[email protected]> writes: > How does this impact the AFS standardization? What are the options to > move forward?
This basically makes it impossible to publish, as an RFC, a specification for the existing protocol or any new work that is, from a legal perspective, a derived work of the existing *.xg files as released by IBM, until such time as someone reverse-engineered the protocol specification in a clean-room environment, or unless the RFC Editor would be willing to publish documents covered by the IBM Public License. (Note that a cogent legal argument can be made that there are no such derived works or barriers to publication on the grounds that the existing files are not copyrightable, but the RFC Editor lawyers would have to be satisfied with such an argument despite what amounts to a contrary opinion from IBM. This strikes me as unlikely. It's the kind of legal risk that the RFC Editor is highly unlikely to take for something that's not IETF work and is going through the independent submission track.) -- Russ Allbery ([email protected]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> _______________________________________________ AFS3-standardization mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/afs3-standardization
