Not to interject specifics into a near consensus, but wouldn't it be
reasonable to require that either:
1) Software to access and alter data be open-source and provided,
or
2) data be in a well-defined and documented format for which software to
manipulate the data can be promptly produced (e.g., ASN.1, CSV, XML, Fixed
Length Field etc). Examples: Distribution of genome data is in ASN.1,
distribution of the LERG (Local Exchange Routing Guide -- distributed to
all LECs, CLECs) which is in both MS and fixed length field.
As long as there is clear, specific, and accurate documentation for the
file format, access usually isn't a problem. Indeed, one might think of
source code as concise documentation.
--Dean
On Mon, 6 Dec 2004, Leslie Daigle wrote:
I think this mostly works, though a couple of comments, in-line:
Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
Hi folks,
it seems that we are drawing close to a consensus here:
- Access to data that the IETF has created and needs to function is a
paramount basic principle. Not to be compromised. So it needs to go VERY
plainly into section 2.2 "principles".
- Access to software is a very-nice-to-have, but it's only critical if
not having it limits our ability to effectively access the data. And
open-source is a quite-nice-to-have; we see a number of advantages in
doing things that way, but there may be cases where other considerations
apply. So this belongs in the document, but under "advice", not
"principles".
So - I'd like to propose a specific text change to address that:
Replace the current section from 2.2 that says:
6. The right to use any intellectual property rights created by any
IASA-related or IETF activity may not be withheld or limited in
any way by ISOC from the IETF.
with the following:
6. The IASA, on behalf of the IETF, shall have an irrevocable,
permanent right of access and later use to all data created
in support of the IETF's activities, including
the right to disclose it to other parties of its choosing.
And in section 3.1 "IAD Responsibilities", add after paragraph 4 ("The
IAD negotiates service contracts"):
The IAD is responsible for ensuring that all contracts give the IASA
and the IETF the rights in data that is needed to satisfy the principle
of data access.
This is needed to make sure the IETF
has access to the data it needs at all times, and that the IASA can
change contractors when needed without disrupting IETF work.
If software is developed under an IASA contract, the software should
remain usable by the IETF beyond the terms of the contract; this may
be accomplished by IASA ownership or an open source license; an open
source license is preferable. The IAD will decide how the interest of
the IETF is best served when making such contracts.
This reads to me like the IAD can choose to have that software owned by
the IETF or open sourced, but nothing else.
And I think that flies if, and only if, such things as providing sums
of money to ensure that a service provider updates their own software
to meet our specified needs (e.g., something mundane like a sort
order on attendance records) is not ever considered "software developed
under an IASA contract".
Is it still English, and does it still scratch the itch for others,
if the 2nd to last sentence is broken up and changed (borrowing from
Carl's suggestions):
Whenever reasonable, if software is developed under an IASA contract
it should should remain usable by the IETF beyond the terms of the
contract. This may be accomplished by IASA ownership or an open source
license; an open source license is preferrable. The IAD will decide how
the interest of the IETF is best served when making such contracts.
Leslie.
--
Av8 Internet Prepared to pay a premium for better service?
www.av8.net faster, more reliable, better service
617 344 9000
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf