On Monday, August 27, 2012 9:37:10 PM, Russ Allbery wrote: > "Chas Williams (CONTRACTOR)" <[email protected]> writes: >> Russ Allbery writes: > >>> 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. > >> what is the origin of the arla .xg files? they seem to have the >> 3-clause bsd license but if they were written using the ibm >> documentation they are potentially tainted. > > Ah, yes, that's a good point. Those may be clean-room reimplementations, > in which case they could be used as a starting point.
I have been pursuing the relicensing with IBM ever since the afs3-stds process was proposed because 1. The Arla files are unlikely to be clean enough. They were not developed in a clean environment. 2. The Arla files are 3-part BSD and would need to be re-licensed themselves to be compatible with the RFC Editor requirements. 3. The Arla xg files are incomplete. >>> (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.) > >> ibm said they didnt want to relicense the files. that doesnt mean that >> the current license is meaningful when it comes to the .xg files since >> they are essentially prototypes. > > My opinion of what we've heard from IBM, which is admittedly based on > second-hand information and is purely my personal opinion, is that IBM > believes the files are covered under the IBM Public License and are > copyrightable. Whether they would bother to try to defend that position, > or would even continue to hold that position if it were seriously > challenged, is another question on which I would not speculate. I think > they hold the position by default, rather than as a considered legal > opinion. But that's my impression of their position. > > I have no intention of pursuing any of this further and don't plan to have > any further involvement in the problem, so other people should absolutely > feel free to discount or disregard that opinion and proceed via whatever > course of action they feel is appropriate. It will be very difficult to > get IBM to express any sort of opinion on the record or in public, if past > experience is any guide. (Which makes sense from a lawyer's perspective; > silence does them no harm.) Unlike Russ, I have had direct discussions with various IBM attorneys over the last five years. There is more than reasonable evidence to support the position that when IBM released the IBM DeveloperWorks OpenAFS source package and wrapped it with the IBM Public License 1.0 that the license was intended to apply to all source files within the source package that were not copyright by another party. As part of the process of creating the first OpenAFS.org release the license was applied in that fashion to each and every source file in the tree which makes it hard to argue that the community founders didn't agree with that interpretation. Altering the license text on the .xg files was not the only change that was requested of IBM. The OpenAFS Elders also pursued altering the licensing on rx which could have been released as public domain based upon the DARPA funding that originally created it. We also pursued changing the license on the documentation. I believe that interfaces should not be copyrightable. However, there is no law to that effect and recent court decisions in the Oracle vs Google case over the use of a Java-like programming language and associated class libraries left a very murky picture of how courts would rule. I am not a lawyer but my interpretation of the decision was that the Java interfaces are copyrighted but that Google did not violate the copyright and hence there were no damages. This decision is of course being appealed. In any case, over the last seven years I have held out hope that if only the right person within IBM could be found that the licensing could be changed and that IBM would relinquish the "AFS" and "OpenAFS" trademarks. I am now convinced that the discussions have reached an end and that there are no stones left unturned. Jason asked what the impact of this decision has on the AFS3 standardization process. This decision means that the IETF and the RFC Editor cannot be used to publish archival copies of protocol documents that are created by this group. This group can still publish documents on a web site of its own, via mailing list archives, or many other methods. Jeffrey Altman
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
