Harald Alvestrand wrote;
- The discussion of permitting change to text was extensive and repeated.
- The consensus of the working group was the compromise position now
documented.
I assert that if you want to claim that either of these two statements
are false, YOU back it up with evidence. As it stands, you are making
statements that I personally, as the WG chair who's tried to shepherd
this process for the last 3 years, find to be crossing the border
between uninformed speculation and assertions that I would have to take
personal affront at.
Harald,
I certainly meant no insult to your efforts to shepherd an IPR group with a
*flawed charter* [1] to a conclusion with which I disagree. You and I
discussed this many times in-channel and back-channel, and you remember my
frustrations and my sympathy for your position then and now.
Indeed, we just wasted another thread arguing about the nonsensical
distinction between code and text and again heard some people assert it is
somehow relevant to the goal of pushing the IETF brand and seeking
consistency on standards.
The proposed IETF IPR policy allows the public to modify the code present in
IETF specifications but not to use that same specification to create
modified text to document that modified code! Does anyone here honestly
believe this is justified?
You admit: The working group took no vote. Nobody ever does in IETF. It is
thus possible for a small group of people who have the stomach to attend to
boring IPR discussions to come to an irrational conclusion.
Since there was never a vote, I retain the right to repeat my concerns.
You'll notice I've not tried to dominate this thread, but I was invited to
comment once again--and I did.
-1.
/Larry
[1] Failure to address patents; failure to identify the goals for IETF of a
revised copyright policy; failure to weigh benefits and costs to the public
of various alternatives.
P.S. I moved this back to ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org(_dot_) Even though some
people there find
these battles over legal issues boring and distracting, this policy is the
guts of why we're here. It should be the entire organization that debates
the charter and results of a policy working group, not the working group
itself.
-----Original Message-----
From: Harald Alvestrand [mailto:harald(_at_)alvestrand(_dot_)no]
Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2008 10:22 PM
To: lrosen(_at_)rosenlaw(_dot_)com
Cc: ipr-wg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: FW: IETF copying conditions
Lawrence Rosen wrote:
Ted Hardie wrote:
Just to forestall Jorge spending some of his valuable time on this,
I note that I'm not confused about this point--I was talking about
cases
where SDOs wished to re-publish (modified) IETF text within their own
specs.
This does not mean that they that they write it down and say
"here is the text from RFC NNNN"; it means that they want to take
the text, change it, and re-publish it.
Allowing someone to say no to that is something the working group has
said it wants to retain.
I don't believe you can point to a vote anywhere in the IPR WG on that
exact
point. Instead, you and others on the committee moved the discussion
into
the misleading topic of code vs. text, and pretended that there was some
difference important to you.
Larry, that is your claim.
I don't dispute the claim that we haven't taken a vote, because the IETF
does not vote.
But I will assert two things:
- The discussion of permitting change to text was extensive and repeated.
- The consensus of the working group was the compromise position now
documented.
I assert that if you want to claim that either of these two statements
are false, YOU back it up with evidence. As it stands, you are making
statements that I personally, as the WG chair who's tried to shepherd
this process for the last 3 years, find to be crossing the border
between uninformed speculation and assertions that I would have to take
personal affront at.
Some breadcrumbs from the archives - both the meeting minutes, the
ticket server and the email archives are online, and you should be able
to find them easily to verify:
The issue tracker shows #1169: "Modified excerpts", with the first text
"Should modified versions of excerpts from non-code text be permitted?".
https://rt.psg.com/Ticket/Display.html?id=1169
The resolution, as of November 13, 2007 (I was lame in my tracker
updates), says "Resolved as of Chicago (not)".
The July 2007 minutes of the physical meeting in Chicago show:
Consensus in room that the other issues have been resolved: #1166,
1167, 1168, 1169, 1175, 1199, 1237, 1246, 1337, 1400
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/07jul/minutes/ipr.txt
My archive search shows that this occurs in multiple messages to the list:
June 27, 2006, "Ticket status, June 27, 2006":
#1169 Modified excerpts
Consensus that modifications to make use of code in implementations
are OK.
No consensus on modifications to non-code.
Not clear if consensus exists on reuse of code for other purposes
than standards implementation
March 27, 2007, "DRAFT minutes from Prague IPR meeting":
III - matching issues to resolutions
Harald reviewed issues from issues list and the resolutions
.......
1169 Modified excerpts
Resolution: Permitted for code, not permitted for non-code
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf