Re: #1198 Proposed resolution - Implementation and derivative work

Ted Hardie <hardie <at> qualcomm.com> writes:

>>>>> SUGGESTED RESOLUTION:
>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> Implementations of IETF standards that incorporate pieces of IETF
>>>>> documents (such as MIBs or data tables) need to have the right to
>>>>> produce derivative works based on those pieces.
...
> Simon's reformulation shifts from what the implementations need to
> what their licenses need.  That is at least a different issue, and it
> should be tracked and resolved separately.

That sounds like a good idea.

>>Without this modification, it is possible design a IETF policy that
>>satisfy the above resolution text but still fail my intended point
>>here: that free implementations may need to incorporate parts of a
>>standard, and to release the work under a license that permits
>
> Please, Simon, recognize that  you have two intended points:
>
> 1)implementations may need to incorporate parts of a standard
>
> 2) some implementors have chosen licensing terms that permit
> modifications or mandate that successor code be licensed such
> that modifications are permitted.

Yes, agreed.

> Harald has suggested we separate this and resolve the first issue,
> around which there seems to be little controversy.  That doesn't
> mean that the second won't be tackled, but it means that we
> get the item for which there is consensus nailed down now.

As I've said, I'm fine with Harald's proposed solution.

What I'm worried about here is that we solve 1) with text that imply
certain restrictions for 2), in particular it imply a code vs text
split, and also the possibility of a policy that is unusable by free
implementations.

This thread (and some off-list discussion) has probably removed my
concerns over that though.

Thanks,
Simon