Theodore Tso <ty...@mit.edu> writes: > However, that presumably wouldn't be tree for allowing text or code to > be used in implementations, open source or otherwise --- I assume > that wouldn't require prior permission first, right?
Right, but only for code. See section 4 of <http://trustee.ietf.org/docs/IETF-Trust-License-Policy.pdf>. The copyright header used in the BSD license will typically be incorrect (and the text in the PDF was modified after the trust approved the document, which makes the version available on the web dubious from a legal perspective) but otherwise, and as far as I can tell, the section grants sufficient rights for free software packages to use code from RFCs. It would be useful if you and others in the free software community reviewed that more thoroughly though. >> Or (and this is my opinion), maybe the authors should only warrant >> _their work_ as being subject to such licenses, and put the burden on >> the Trust to obtain any necessary approvals from other parties, only >> alerting the Trust to the extent they know of such prior authorship. My >> understanding is that this would require a 5378bis. > > That I think is the key; each person can only warrant what they > themselves have authored. Something that might be worth looking at is > the Developer's Certification of Origin, which is how Linux Kernel > developers deal with contributions for the Linux Kernel. Agreed. The GNU project has used a similar approach for a long time. In many ways, the atmosphere in the IPR WG was to not review and learn from others' mistakes in this area. I think this is one area where we could have done better. /Simon _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
