Re: FW: IETF copying conditions
Ted Hardie wrote: > At 10:13 AM -0700 9/25/08, Lawrence Rosen wrote: > >> 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? > > I'll be the existence proof on this one: I believe it is justified. The > reasons for it have been discussed at length and a conclusion based > on rough consensus has been reached. Ted explained to me off-list why he believes this policy is justified, and I now understand why he believes that. I still think that the attack (other SDOs palming off modified IETF specifications as canonical) is not as threatening as others think it is (and in general I would prefer to use less heavy-handed methods), but they have more experience than I do with this particular attack, so for what it's worth I have decided to defer to them on this matter. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: FW: IETF copying conditions
At 10:13 AM -0700 9/25/08, Lawrence Rosen wrote: > >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? I'll be the existence proof on this one: I believe it is justified. The reasons for it have been discussed at length and a conclusion based on rough consensus has been reached. >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. That conclusion seems at this point to have been supported by the rough consensus judged of the IETF Last Call and the deliberations of the IESG. I agree that many folks run pounding from the room when these discussions occur, but the rough consensus of those who care seems to be how we do things in general around here. I also agree that the discussions are often boring, often frustrating, and I believe everyone involved will be happier when the WG closes down. Rough consensus is not voting, and the ways it works are often troublesome on matters of principle, because they don't admit of the same kinds of compromise that engineering trade-offs do. But voting in an organization with no defined membership would be far worse here, as the ballot-stuffing campaigns would be damaging on even more levels. regards, Ted ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: FW: IETF copying conditions
My answer to Larry's question - Yes. Regards, Chuck - Chuck Powers, Motorola, Inc phone: 512-427-7261 mobile: 512-576-0008 > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lawrence Rosen > Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2008 12:14 PM > To: 'Harald Alvestrand'; ietf@ietf.org > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2008 10:22 PM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > 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 "; 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. > &g
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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2008 10:22 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 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 "; 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: > > Conse
RE: FW: IETF copying conditions
Larry, > Paul Hoffman wrote: > > Which SDOs that you participate in want to see other SDOs publishing > > *incompatible* versions of their protocols? > > Hi Paul, > > Of course none of the SDOs that I work with want to see incompatible > versions. But this turns the issue on its head. Open source and open > standards deal with the freedom to do things, even though we might > discourage people to take us up on that offer of freedom. > > So with respect to IETF specifications, the open source and open standards > objective is that the world is *free* to make compatible or incompatible > versions of our specifications. (This is the philosophy that neither IETF > nor Microsoft nor IBM, nor anyone else, is going to be the absolute God of > acceptable software.) I'm sure that good people everywhere will cooperate to > ensure that all good versions of our specifications are compatible, and > cooperative people will be encouraged to remain compatible by virtue of the > quality of our work. > > But if anyone, anywhere, for any reason, wants to take an IETF specification > and modify it, open source requires that he be free to do so. I think "requires" is a stretch. There are a large number of non-IETF standards implemented in open source for which copyright does not permit arbitrary modifications, so I think "requires" is incorrect. Copyright provisions that do not grant derivative works rights and have distribution terms far less permissive than IETF's are common in other standards bodies, some of whom rely on charging money for copies of standards to fund their budgets. IETF has chosen not to charge for standards for many good reasons. Encouraging people who want to modify standards to talk to the people who developed the standards is a "good idea", and to the extent that copyright terms encourage people to do so, that's beneficial. An example of the benefits of this sort of discussion is RFC 4595 "Use of IKEv2 in the Fibre Channel Security Association Management Protocol" (I'm an author). When I started working on this, my initial belief was that an IETF RFC and use of IANA-allocated values was highly unlikely (e.g., IKEv2 for FC does not run over IP) and I was pleasantly surprised that the IETF Security Area wanted to see the FC values and usage documented in an RFC. OTOH, of the various arguments made for use of RFC text, the one I'm most sympathetic to is documentation - code comments, manuals, online help, etc., where the ability to selectively quote from the RFC that is implemented can be very useful. This would need to be controlled, as blanket permission for arbitrary selective quoting can be dangerous - it's fairly easy to change a standard to be non-interoperable via selective quoting. For an (amusing) extreme example from another domain, see: http://www.legis.state.wi.us/senate/sen10/news/FrankensteinVeto.pdf While I doubt that anyone would ever resort to something that bizarre in quoting from an RFC, I hope the underlying concern is clear. Thanks, --David David L. Black, Distinguished Engineer EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA 01748 +1 (508) 293-7953 FAX: +1 (508) 293-7786 [EMAIL PROTECTED]Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754 ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: FW: IETF copying conditions
Paul Hoffman writes ("RE: FW: IETF copying conditions"):
> Which SDOs that you participate in want to see other SDOs publishing
> *incompatible* versions of their protocols?
The Debian project has published a small (by IETF standards) but
significant body of work specifying the interoperation and behaviour
of the various parts of what they regard as a modern Unix system,
particularly as regards the behaviour of package management systems
and the interoperation between separately-maintained packages.
The Debian standards documents (the core of which I originally wrote
but which have been greatly expanded and enhanced and are now
maintained by others) are released under a licences which permit
modified redistribution with a definite expectation that derivative
systems might want to do things differently.
That a different system might do things differently would not be good
for Debian so we don't encourage it. We would prefer to keep Debian
and its derivatives as close as possible so that we can share
development work (particularly, so that we can all benefit from each
others' improvements).
However, the whole point of Free Software (and thus the point of
Debian) is that people are free to modify it. If that means that they
are free to cause it to run to incompatible standards, so be it. And
that freedom needs to be practically exerciseable collectively as well
as individually, so must include the freedom to properly communicate
within their own project what they are doing. So we do not use the
law to prevent our derivatives from using modified versions of our
standards documents if they regard it as necessary.
Debian is a not insignificant organisation. There are around 1000
members with voting rights. Many of Debian's choices both at a
technical and political level have been influential in the relevant
fields.
Ian.
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: FW: IETF copying conditions
At 11:00 AM -0700 9/18/08, Ian Jackson wrote: > >That a different system might do things differently would not be good >for Debian so we don't encourage it. We would prefer to keep Debian >and its derivatives as close as possible so that we can share >development work (particularly, so that we can all benefit from each >others' improvements). Thanks for your considered reply to the issues. In the section above, you hit on one of the crucial issues: what's the cost of a fork? It's actually highly variable. In many instances, a fork doesn't actually create interoperability problems at all, but instead carries two different code bases forward in different directions, while still allowing bits and pieces from the two code bases to be passed back and forth at will. The cost there is low. In other instances, it does create two new systems, each of which continues to evolve separately but without the ability to freely move code from one to another. Both instances may limit the benefit each group may have from the other's efforts, but it is clearly the latter case which is the most troubling. In the IETF, the lack of interoperability is not simply expressed in the re-use of code, but in the compatibility of the wire formats and thus the ability to pass messages among the actors who share the net. In the IETF, interoperability is one the key measurements of success; without it, no protocol is a success in our terms. There are things which must also happen, but it is the foundation of all the protocol work that happens here. The contortions we engage to maximize that often look strange, but they fall out of a very basic principle: The Internet must not fork. To remain "the Internet" and not simply an internet, we must do everything we can to prevent it. There are a host of local optimizations which could be made in specific environments, and there are extraordinary temptations at times to make them and gateway at the border of those regions. It's almost always a mistake. Every time we have broken the core interoperablity of the network in order to achieve some local optimization, the system as a whole has been hurt. Sometimes so severely that we are still recovering. No one objects to the code implementing a protocol from being changed, modified, or, yes, forked. Maintaining a frankly ugly distinction between "code" and "text" is an expression of our willingness to see those modifications. But our willingness to see the protocols drift into a non-interoperable mess should approach zero. It hurts the net too much, by isolating those whom the net should connect. Speaking only for myself, regards, Ted Hardie ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: FW: IETF copying conditions
Paul Hoffman wrote: > Which SDOs that you participate in want to see other SDOs publishing > *incompatible* versions of their protocols? Hi Paul, Of course none of the SDOs that I work with want to see incompatible versions. But this turns the issue on its head. Open source and open standards deal with the freedom to do things, even though we might discourage people to take us up on that offer of freedom. So with respect to IETF specifications, the open source and open standards objective is that the world is *free* to make compatible or incompatible versions of our specifications. (This is the philosophy that neither IETF nor Microsoft nor IBM, nor anyone else, is going to be the absolute God of acceptable software.) I'm sure that good people everywhere will cooperate to ensure that all good versions of our specifications are compatible, and cooperative people will be encouraged to remain compatible by virtue of the quality of our work. But if anyone, anywhere, for any reason, wants to take an IETF specification and modify it, open source requires that he be free to do so. The current proposed IPR policy seems to allow that for "code" but not for "text" in our specifications. What a burden that imposes to protect people from freedom! /Larry > -Original Message- > From: Paul Hoffman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2008 3:19 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ietf@ietf.org > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: FW: IETF copying conditions > > At 2:43 PM -0700 9/17/08, Lawrence Rosen wrote: > >I'm moving this to [EMAIL PROTECTED] There are important policy implications > >here that the entire community should understand before we let the IPR WG > >decide for us on a policy so opposite to open source and open standards! > > Larry, I'm confused. What about the statement that "We don't want to > see other SDOs publishing *incompatible* versions of our protocols, > period" is the opposite of the policy of open standards (emphasis > added)? > > Which SDOs that you participate in want to see other SDOs publishing > *incompatible* versions of their protocols? > > --Paul Hoffman, Director > --VPN Consortium ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: FW: IETF copying conditions
At 2:43 PM -0700 9/17/08, Lawrence Rosen wrote: >I'm moving this to [EMAIL PROTECTED] There are important policy implications >here that the entire community should understand before we let the IPR WG >decide for us on a policy so opposite to open source and open standards! Larry, I'm confused. What about the statement that "We don't want to see other SDOs publishing *incompatible* versions of our protocols, period" is the opposite of the policy of open standards (emphasis added)? Which SDOs that you participate in want to see other SDOs publishing *incompatible* versions of their protocols? --Paul Hoffman, Director --VPN Consortium ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: FW: IETF copying conditions
I'm moving this to [EMAIL PROTECTED] There are important policy implications here that the entire community should understand before we let the IPR WG decide for us on a policy so opposite to open source and open standards! I am also copying this separately to the Open Web Foundation (OWF) list, which I believe may have some interest in ensuring that it can copy and modify IETF specifications for its own standards any time it damn well pleases. /Larry > > At 11:18 AM -0700 9/17/08, Lawrence Rosen wrote: > >> Suppose you were to specifically ask whether IETF wants to prevent > other > >> SDOs from re-publishing (modified) IETF text within their own specs? Do > you > >> expect that the community here really wants to limit the use of IETF > specs > >> in that way? > > Yes, undoubtedly that was the WG consensus. We don't want to see other > SDOs > publishing incompatible versions of our protocols, period. And this is > not paranoia; it's evidence-based, although I don't want to point the > finger > at specific SDOs, since such matters are usually handled by courteous > bilateral discussions. Using copyright protection is clearly a last > resort. > > >> Why on earth would a volunteer, cooperative standards > >> organization like IETF want to do that to other volunteer, cooperative > SDOs? > > Becaus our primary mission is to make the Internet work better, which > requires interoperable protocols, which precludes incompatible versions. > >Brian * Please note: There is an earlier set of emails on this thread in the archives of the IPR WG. /Larry * > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > Of Brian E Carpenter > Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2008 2:15 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: FW: IETF copying conditions ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
