ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [codec] Last Call: <draft-ietf-codec-oggopus-10.txt> (Ogg Encapsulation for the Opus Audio Codec) to Proposed Standard

2016-01-28 15:08:11
We (the IETF) had this discussion regarding our copyright rules. We discussed the tension with reuse by open source documentation where the community could not commit to copying things without changing them (If they could make that promise, there would be no problem as such copying is already permitted.)

So either the open source communities needs to be able to change the text, or it does not need to be able to change the text, or it has created rules for itself where it needs to be permitted to change the text even though it does not actually want to change.

The first, not changing the text, is already covered.
The second, changing the text, is not something I or the IETF community support. The third would seem to be a different problem, and asking the IEtF to change its rules for that seems a VERY strange answer.

Yours,
Joel

On 1/28/16 3:59 PM, Jean-Marc Valin wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On 01/28/2016 03:23 PM, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
I think that this is a very bad idea.  The point of doing the work
to create an RFC is to reach agreements on what the words should
be. Saying after that "oh, but anyone else can change these words
any way they want" just does not work for me.

The main issue here is not that people would like to change what the
RFC says. It's quite the opposite in fact. People would like to be
able to reuse parts the RFC text in other contexts (e.g. documentation
for a piece of software that relies on several RFCs). Without
additional rights, they would have to paraphrase the content of RFCs,
which would actually lead to more compatibility problems. Also, the
proposed text already includes the condition "provided that no such
derivative work shall be presented, displayed, or published in a
manner that states or implies that it is part of this RFC or any other
IETF Document". Given that, I'm not sure what the problem is.

Cheers,

        Jean-Marc
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2

iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJWqoEbAAoJEJ6/8sItn9q9a1wH+wY6k2UP7iYQjLng6XQ79hgD
W7pklezNzSXUlohTcUMK6s9n03fa1rK2jJcslDGgpO/qqzqdUDbEAlqqZhH2H+hc
KXac5S6XVp56k0/QGPuyap9Ijshurs5ehvnYvBAuqcWAb9u9HaYlylZtH9/e482c
Cretot8m5d2quZ1i3j23HccrfLiyve097OufY2sdgbzL1Xzu5qwcn/xJh27ccFtN
0Cbhigr7r6b8rNM/9VHSIF50shM2EuqULHBj+ABJbGfGIcWq4zRVJOsY0OqMaFcS
42y/974N/Admp6en1kITfdD6ZOn3jJpON6QOpaFRiGCiW3OsGs9AMCjZ+do4KM4=
=WfO7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>