-----Original Message-----
From: ipr-wg-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
[mailto:ipr-wg-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Lawrence Rosen
Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2008 12:14 PM
To: 'Harald Alvestrand'; ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Cc: ipr-wg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: RE: FW: IETF copying conditions
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
_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg