-----Original Message-----
From: trustees-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
[mailto:trustees-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Russ Housley
Sent: Monday, July 20, 2009 8:41 AM
To: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Cc: trustees(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; wgchairs(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org;
rfc-interest(_at_)rfc-editor(_dot_)org; iab(_at_)iab(_dot_)org;
iesg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: [Trustees] Objection to reworked para 6.d (Re:
Rationale for Proposed TLP Revisions)
I think that the alternate text proposed by Harald meets the current
need without constraining the future.
Russ
I also think that Harald's alternate language would work. The sentence
in question was inserted to offer guidance to users of code, not to
comply with any specific legal requirement of the BSD License. If
others think that Harald's formulation would be more helpful (and more
future-proof), then it is a reasonable approach to adopt.
Apologies for this being a month late.
From the rationale:
4.e -- this new section clarifies the legend requirements for Code
Components that are used in software under the BSD License. In
short, the user must include the full BSD License text or a shorter
pointer to it (which is set forth in Section 6.d)
Explanation: The issue of the appropriate BSD License language to
include in Code
Components extracted from IETF documents has been discussed
extensively
within the IESG. The proposed TLP language is intended to
be consistent
with the IESG's latest guidance language, and allows the
user of IETF
Code to include either the full BSD license language (about
15 lines of
text), or a short "pointer" to the BSD language (about 4 lines).
6.b -- a new sentence has been added to the legend that
must be placed
on all IETF Documents, pointing out the BSD License requirements
described in 4.e above and emphasizing that code in IETF Documents
comes without any warranty, as described in the BSD License.
Explanation: See 4.e above
The text added, which is intended to be placed on all IETF documents
(internet-drafts and RFCs), is:
Code Components
extracted from this document must include BSD License text as
described in Section 4.e of
the TLP and are provided without warranty as described in
the BSD License.
I object to this change.
The reason is this:
- The RFCs are intended to be permanent (as in "forever").
- The purpose of the "incoming/outgoing split" was to make sure the
Trust had the tools it needed to fix any errors made, or to respond
to changed circumstances, by changing the rights granted
under "outgoing".
- The BSD license is a specific license text, and there is no
guarantee that there won't be new circumstances that warrant generic
licensing under a different license in the future.
Thus, this change limits the ability of the Trust to respond to
future changes; if it ever decides (as an example) to use the Apache
License instead of the BSD license because some court has found the
BSD text to be objectionable in some manner, this will lead to all
documents published with this text to be misleading.
(As an example of changed circumstances - the Wikimedia Foundation
just changed its licensing terms from GPL to a Creative Commons
license - this required some fancy footwork to make it seem legal,
even though a large majority of contributors agreed that it was the
right thing to do. I don't want to see that kind of trouble
in the IETF.)
If the text added instead read:
Code Components extracted from this document must include
license text
as described in the TLP and are provided without warranty
as described in
the TLP license provisions
I would have no objection. This preserves the Trust's ability to
change provisions.
Harald Alvestrand
_______________________________________________
Trustees mailing list
Trustees(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trustees
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf