I have no issues with the license text, but will suggest a
clarification or
two. We have been using basically the same text for IETF models on the Yang
repo on github for about
2 years with no issues. I’ll note that that we hashed through these in great
detail with the
netmod/conf community and arrived at how we operate. We also work with the
IEEE/MEF/ODL communities
on the same repo, and everyone seems to get along happily with these rules in
place. The license
statement we have been using for about 2 years is available here if you are
interested.
https://github.com/YangModels/yang
The first clarification I think is necessary is around how “repository”
is
defined. In the case of github, that might be taken to mean the *entire*
repository, which
practically speaking is not how things work, at least in our case because the
repository
holds files created by various organizations (and vendors for that matter).
Instead, the approach we
have taken is to require that each main/top-level subdirectory contain a
license statement
that applies to all files and subdirectories therein. Committers explicitly
agree to those terms
by virtue of checking in a file (or posting a comment/issue on that file).
This also reveals a finer point about the license statement pertaining
to comments.
Again, our statement defines comments as falling under whatever licensing terms
are defined
for the file in question. This is a gray area in our case due to having
multiple files that fall under
multiple licenses. So for example, one comment about one file might refer to
another file covered by
another license. Does that mean that now the first file falls under the
licensing terms of the other
file? Let me give you an example. We have IEEE models that do rely on advice
given from Yang doctors
either explicitly or via references to some of the guiding documents/RFCs that
exist. In discussing the
IEEE model, there might be a discussion around such a recommendation for how to
build a model. In this
case, is this IEEE model suddenly now under the IETF’s license (or the part of
the model being discussed)?
The working assumption by us is that it is not. However, this is something you
might want to clarify.
—Tom
On Jan 4, 2017:11:20 AM, at 11:20 AM, IETF Chair <chair(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
wrote:
With the holidays over, this is a re-send of the request to
review the suggested license file.
Jari
----
The IESG has observed that many working groups work with open source
repositories even for their work on specifications. That's great, and
we're happy to see this development, as it fits well the working style
of at least some of our working groups. This style is also likely to be
more popular in the future.
As always, we'd like to understand areas where we can either be helpful
in bringing in some new things such as tooling, or where we need to
integrate better between the repository world and the IETF process. As
an example of the latter, we're wondering whether it would be helpful to
have a standard boilerplate for these repositories with respect to the
usual copyright and other matters. The intent is for such text to be
placed in a suitable file (e.g., "CONTRIBUTING"), probably along with
some additional information that is already present in these files in
many repositories. The idea is that people should treat, e.g., text
contributions to a draft-foo.xml in a repository much in the same way as
they treat text contributions on the list, at least when it comes to
copyright, IPR, and other similar issues.
We have worked together with the IETF legal team and few key experts
from the IETF who are actively using these repositories, and suggest the
following text.
We're looking to make a decision on this matter on our January 19th,
2017 IESG Telechat, and would appreciate feedback before then. This
message will be resent after the holiday period is over to make sure it
is noticed. Please send comments to the IESG (iesg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org) by
2017-01-17.
The IESG
——
This repository relates to activities in the Internet Engineering Task
Force(IETF). All material in this repository is considered Contributions
to the IETF Standards Process, as defined in the intellectual property
policies of IETF currently designated as BCP 78
(https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp78), BCP 79
(https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79) and the IETF Trust Legal
Provisions (TLP) Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/trust-legal-provisions.html).
Any edit, commit, pull-request, comment or other change made to this
repository constitutes Contributions to the IETF Standards Process. You
agree to comply with all applicable IETF policies and procedures,
including, BCP 78, 79, the TLP, and the TLP rules regarding code
components (e.g. being subject to a Simplified BSD License) in
Contributions.