Thanks Ray, that is reassuring.
I don't think this decreases the need for the -outbound document to be
as clear as possible about what the IETF needs are, though.
/Simon
Ray Pelletier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In their April 3, 2008 meeting, the IETF Trustees discussed the
> outbound-IPR do
In their April 3, 2008 meeting, the IETF Trustees discussed the
outbound-IPR document, and found no issues with the advice given in
the document.
More specifically, the Trustees intend to invite comments
from the community, via the ietf discussion list, prior to issuing any
new licenses. The c
Colleagues,
The IAB discussed the IPR documents during its most recent call. It
unanimously decided that the IAB-stream is to be covered by the
incoming IPR document. It is our understanding that the iab-stream
documents IPR are then automatically covered by the outbounds rights
that th
>
> > I agree with Joel. We're trying to give instructions to the Trust that
>> cover the broadest possible user base; calling out specific licenses
>> or user bases either appears to privilege them or adds no value at
>> all. Suggesting to the Trustees that they consider specific licenses
>> or,
Ted Hardie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> At 12:11 PM -0700 3/30/08, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
>>I am still left with the impression that adding references to specific
>>licenses to the draft is going to be confusing, not helpful.
>>If we started saying "needs to be compatible with license X, Y, and Z
Peter Saint-Andre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Given the fact that the Trust is supposed to meet on the 3rd Wednesday
> of each month but that as of today the most recent minutes posted at
> http://trustee.ietf.org/minutes.html are from 2007-06-21, I cannot say
> that I have much confidence regar
"Joel M. Halpern" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I am still left with the impression that adding references to specific
> licenses to the draft is going to be confusing, not helpful.
> If we started saying "needs to be compatible with license X, Y, and Z"
> then we have at least two problems. We
Simon Josefsson skrev:
> Regarding -outbound section 4.3:
>
>IETF contributions often include components intended to be directly
>processed by a computer. Examples of these include ABNF definitions,
>XML Schemas, XML DTDs, XML RelaxNG definitions, tables of values,
>MIBs, ASN.1, or
Olaf Kolkman skrev:
>
>
> While reviewing the documents I tried to determine how the 4 streams
> currently defined in RFC4844 fit into the framework.
>
> Although the stream is not specifically mentioned it is clear that the
> incoming rights document applies to the IETF Stream.
That was my inter
Randy Presuhn wrote:
> Hi -
>
>> From: "Peter Saint-Andre" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> To: "Ted Hardie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Cc:
>> Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2008 6:03 PM
>> Subject: Re: IETF Last Call for two IPR WG Dcouments
&g
I think more important is that the cited intent when this thread was
warming up was that we were asking the Trust to NOT IMPOSE any
restrictions on code examples WHICH WEREN'T already present from
the contributor of the example. ANY license imposed by the Trust
would likley conflict with that inte
Hi -
> From: "Peter Saint-Andre" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Ted Hardie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc:
> Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2008 6:03 PM
> Subject: Re: IETF Last Call for two IPR WG Dcouments
...
> And how do we provide suggestions to th
Ted Hardie wrote:
> We're trying to give instructions to the Trust that
> cover the broadest possible user base; calling out specific licenses
> or user bases either appears to privilege them or adds no value at
> all. Suggesting to the Trustees that they consider specific licenses
> or, even bett
At 12:11 PM -0700 3/30/08, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
>I am still left with the impression that adding references to specific
>licenses to the draft is going to be confusing, not helpful.
>If we started saying "needs to be compatible with license X, Y, and Z"
>then we have at least two problems. We wo
I am still left with the impression that adding references to specific
licenses to the draft is going to be confusing, not helpful.
If we started saying "needs to be compatible with license X, Y, and Z"
then we have at least two problems. We would have to confirm that X, Y,
and Z all met our go
Simon Josefsson wrote:
> We disagree here. I believe the IETF has a responsibility to
> chose a license that works well for a large majority of
> Internet users. To some extents, the IETF needs to cater for
> organizations that make up parts of the Internet.
Users include authors of RFCs as w
Paul Hoffman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> At 7:30 PM +0200 3/30/08, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>>Paul Hoffman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > These are interesting points, but maybe not interesting in the way
>>> you intended. If some large group (in this example, the Debian folks)
>>> want to ha
At 7:30 PM +0200 3/30/08, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>Paul Hoffman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > These are interesting points, but maybe not interesting in the way
>> you intended. If some large group (in this example, the Debian folks)
>> want to have some restriction on what they can use in thei
Paul Hoffman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> At 11:15 AM +0200 3/30/08, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>>If the trust uses a software license for code that doesn't meet the
>>requirements in, say, the DFSG, would you consider that a failure? If
>>that happens, Debian cannot include such code.
>
> At 11:25
"Spencer Dawkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi, Simon,
>
>> If the trust uses a software license for code that doesn't meet the
>> requirements in, say, the DFSG, would you consider that a failure? If
>> that happens, Debian cannot include such code.
>>
>> Using the NPOSL3.0 as the software l
At 11:15 AM +0200 3/30/08, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>If the trust uses a software license for code that doesn't meet the
>requirements in, say, the DFSG, would you consider that a failure? If
>that happens, Debian cannot include such code.
At 11:25 AM +0200 3/30/08, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>There ar
Hi, Simon,
> If the trust uses a software license for code that doesn't meet the
> requirements in, say, the DFSG, would you consider that a failure? If
> that happens, Debian cannot include such code.
>
> Using the NPOSL3.0 as the software license, which I read Ray's message
> to imply was being
I'm cc'ing ietf@ietf.org since others may have the same question.
"Joel M. Halpern" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'll leave it up to others to comment on list, but you did not
> actually answer the question.
> How is it possible to write a license that lets anyone use the code
> any way they wan
Brian E Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Simon,
>
> On 2008-03-29 22:10, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> ...
>> this? However, if a license meet the requirements of OSD/FSD/DFSG,
>
> I don't believe it is appropriate for an IETF BCP to contain
> an open-ended dependency on whatever future requir
Simon,
On 2008-03-29 22:10, Simon Josefsson wrote:
...
> this? However, if a license meet the requirements of OSD/FSD/DFSG,
I don't believe it is appropriate for an IETF BCP to contain
an open-ended dependency on whatever future requirements three
other organizations might publish. That's why i
30 PM
> To: Ray Pelletier
> Cc: Simon Josefsson; Joel M. Halpern; ietf@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: IETF Last Call for two IPR WG Dcouments
>
>
> Ray Pelletier wrote:
>> The Trustees adopted the Non-Profit Open Software License 3.0 in
>> September 2007 as the license it wou
On 2008-03-28 18:49 Ray Pelletier said the following:
> The Trustees adopted the Non-Profit Open Software License 3.0 in
> September 2007 as the license it would use for open sourcing software
> done as work-for-hire and that contributed to it, at that time thinking
> of code contributed by IE
On 2008-03-28 20:14, Olaf Kolkman wrote:
>
> On Mar 27, 2008, at 10:28 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> While not really disagreeing with Leslie and Olaf, I would
>> point out that the IPR WG was chartered to look at
>> IETF documents.
>
> Those being ietf-stream exclusively or implicitly also cov
+1. I couldn't express it better.
Brian
On 2008-03-29 04:54, Ted Hardie wrote:
> At 8:16 AM -0700 3/28/08, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>> "Joel M. Halpern" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>> I do not understand the problem you want addressed. The way this is
>>> worded, it doesn't matter what "ope
Lawrence Rosen wrote:
> Margaret Wasserman wrote:
>> Disclaimer: IANAL, and I apologize if I am misunderstanding
>> something about the license you referenced, but...
>>
>> It seems to me that the "Non-Profit Open Software License 3.0", while
>> fine for the source code to IETF tools, places more
> c) to distribute or communicate copies of the Original Work
> and Derivative Works to the public, with the proviso that
> copies of Original Work or Derivative Works that You
> distribute or communicate shall be licensed under this
> Non-Profit Open Software License or as provided in section
l Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> Margaret Wasserman
> Sent: Friday, March 28, 2008 11:30 AM
> To: Ray Pelletier
> Cc: Simon Josefsson; Joel M. Halpern; ietf@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: IETF Last Call for two IPR WG Dcouments
>
>
Ray Pelletier wrote:
> The Trustees adopted the Non-Profit Open Software License 3.0 in
> September 2007 as the license it would use for open sourcing software
> done as work-for-hire and that contributed to it, at that time thinking
> of code contributed by IETF volunteers. See:
> http://truste
: Friday, March 28, 2008 2:30 PM
To: Ray Pelletier
Cc: Simon Josefsson; Joel M. Halpern; ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: IETF Last Call for two IPR WG Dcouments
Ray Pelletier wrote:
> The Trustees adopted the Non-Profit Open Software License 3.0 in
> September 2007 as the license it would use fo
SM wrote:
> At 03:01 28-03-2008, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>
>> To give the Trust something concrete to work with I propose to add the
>> following:
>>
>> To make sure the granted rights are usable in practice, they need to
>> at least meet the requirements of the Open Source Definition [OSD],
>>
Ray Pelletier wrote:
> The Trustees adopted the Non-Profit Open Software License 3.0 in
> September 2007 as the license it would use for open sourcing
> software done as work-for-hire and that contributed to it, at that
> time thinking of code contributed by IETF volunteers. See: http://
At 03:01 28-03-2008, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>Regarding -outbound section 4.3:
>
>
>As such, the rough consensus is that the IETF Trust is to grant
>rights such that code components of IETF contributions can be
>extracted, modified, and used by anyone in any way desired. To
>enable
Ray Pelletier wrote:
>
> Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>
>> Joel M. Halpern wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I do not understand the problem you want addressed. The way this is
>>> worded, it doesn't matter what "open source" or "free software" is or
>>> becomes. The intention is to grant anyone to do anything wi
Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
Joel M. Halpern wrote:
I do not understand the problem you want addressed. The way this is
worded, it doesn't matter what "open source" or "free software" is or
becomes. The intention is to grant anyone to do anything with the code
segments. That's what we ask
Joel M. Halpern wrote:
> I do not understand the problem you want addressed. The way this is
> worded, it doesn't matter what "open source" or "free software" is or
> becomes. The intention is to grant anyone to do anything with the code
> segments. That's what we ask the trust to do. Further
At 8:16 AM -0700 3/28/08, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>"Joel M. Halpern" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> I do not understand the problem you want addressed. The way this is
>> worded, it doesn't matter what "open source" or "free software" is or
>> becomes. The intention is to grant anyone to do anyt
"Joel M. Halpern" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I do not understand the problem you want addressed. The way this is
> worded, it doesn't matter what "open source" or "free software" is or
> becomes. The intention is to grant anyone to do anything with the code
> segments. That's what we ask
I do not understand the problem you want addressed. The way this is
worded, it doesn't matter what "open source" or "free software" is or
becomes. The intention is to grant anyone to do anything with the code
segments. That's what we ask the trust to do. Further in line.
Simon Josefsson wrot
> My suggestion is to rewrite section 4 a bit to call out that this
> document does not cover the incoming rights for the independent and
> irtf stream and to use the terms "ietf-stream" and possibly "iab-
> stream" in the definitions.
thats all well & good for the independent stream since t
re Definition [FSD], and the Debian Free Software
> Guidelines [DFSG].
+1
/Larry
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> Simon Josefsson
> Sent: Friday, March 28, 2008 3:02 AM
> To: Russ Housley
> Cc: ietf@ietf.org
&g
Regarding -outbound section 4.3:
IETF contributions often include components intended to be directly
processed by a computer. Examples of these include ABNF definitions,
XML Schemas, XML DTDs, XML RelaxNG definitions, tables of values,
MIBs, ASN.1, or classical programming code. Thes
On Mar 27, 2008, at 10:28 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
While not really disagreeing with Leslie and Olaf, I would
point out that the IPR WG was chartered to look at
IETF documents.
Those being ietf-stream exclusively or implicitly also covering the
iab-stream?
Personally, I think it makes
While not really disagreeing with Leslie and Olaf, I would
point out that the IPR WG was chartered to look at
IETF documents. We can have a meta-discussion about
where the clarifications belong, but it seems to me
that the WG consensus definitely assumed that scope
and no wider scope. I'd be happy
--On March 27, 2008 10:33:24 AM +0100 Olaf Kolkman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> I would think that the document would gain in clarity if it explicitly
> ties the incoming rights to the streams as defined in RFC4844 and also
> explicitly calls out that if new streams would be defined those should
While reviewing the documents I tried to determine how the 4 streams
currently defined in RFC4844 fit into the framework.
Although the stream is not specifically mentioned it is clear that the
incoming rights document applies to the IETF Stream.
To me it is clear that a contribution to t
> "Brian" == Brian E Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Brian> Also note that appeal and recall procedures for the IAOC
Brian> are defined in RFC 4071, and that clearly includes Trust
Brian> actions, since the Trustees are by definition the IAOC
Brian> members. So if the IE
On 2008-03-27 09:14, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
>>
>> --On Tuesday, March 25, 2008 21:30:54 -0600 Peter Saint-Andre
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Finally, the outbound draft merely provides recommendations regarding
>>> license text and other materials, final d
Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
>
>
> --On Tuesday, March 25, 2008 21:30:54 -0600 Peter Saint-Andre
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Russ Housley wrote:
>>> During the Wednesday Plenary at IETF 71, I gave the IETF community a
>>> "heads up" on two documents from the IPR WG that were nearing IETF
--On Tuesday, March 25, 2008 21:30:54 -0600 Peter Saint-Andre
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Russ Housley wrote:
>> During the Wednesday Plenary at IETF 71, I gave the IETF community a
>> "heads up" on two documents from the IPR WG that were nearing IETF
>> Last Call. Both of the documents have
Comments in response to your comments on -outbound...
Firstly, thank you for reading these.
Second, what follows are my understandings of the reasons / contents.
Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> Russ Housley wrote:
>> During the Wednesday Plenary at IETF 71, I gave the IETF community a
>> "heads up" on
On 2008-03-25 08:52, Russ Housley wrote:
> During the Wednesday Plenary at IETF 71, I gave the IETF community a
> "heads up" on two documents from the IPR WG that were nearing IETF
> Last Call. Both of the documents have now reached IETF Last
> call. The Last Call announcements are attached.
Russ Housley wrote:
> During the Wednesday Plenary at IETF 71, I gave the IETF community a
> "heads up" on two documents from the IPR WG that were nearing IETF
> Last Call. Both of the documents have now reached IETF Last
> call. The Last Call announcements are attached. Please review and com
During the Wednesday Plenary at IETF 71, I gave the IETF community a
"heads up" on two documents from the IPR WG that were nearing IETF
Last Call. Both of the documents have now reached IETF Last
call. The Last Call announcements are attached. Please review and comment.
Russ
== == == == ==
58 matches
Mail list logo
