RE: #1198 Proposed resolution - Implementation and derivative work

Thanks Ted. You just saving me a lot of typing.

I agree completely with Ted's comments, and support Harald's
formulation.

David Harrington
dbharrington <at> comcast.net

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ted Hardie [mailto:hardie <at> qualcomm.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 5:47 PM
> To: Simon Josefsson; Harald Tveit Alvestrand
> Cc: ipr-wg <at> ietf.org
> Subject: Re: #1198 Proposed resolution - Implementation and 
> derivative work
> 
> At 4:13 PM +0100 2/22/06, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> >Harald wrote:
> > >>> This is a WG Last Call on issue #1198, with a timeout 
> of one week, and
> >>>> I'll close it on February 28.
> >>>>
> >>>> 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.
> >>>
> >>> FWIW, I agree with this solution.
> >>>
> >>> I note that some may consider 'text' to be something that 
> you would
> >>> have to incorporate in an implementation in order to 
> implement it.  My
> >>> point is that in the above, it may have been implied that 
> only 'code'
> >>> is applicable for this rule.  I'm not sure if this was 
> intentional.
> >>
> >> It was very much intentional that I wrote "pieces" and not "code"
-
> >> that allows us to close this issue without having to solve 
> the "what
> >> is code" issue first....
> >
> >Ok.
> >
> >I suggest to add that the derivative works should be possible to
> >release under licenses which are frequently used for IETF
standards.
> >For example:
> >
> > 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, and those rights
> > need to be compatible with a wide range of licenses commonly
> > used by implementers.
> 
> I strongly prefer Harald's formulation.  It says what the 
> implementations
> need and commits us to making sure that the IETF delivers it.
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> >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.
> 
> 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.
> 
> 			regards,
> 				Ted Hardie
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ipr-wg mailing list
> Ipr-wg <at> ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg
>