Re: IETF and open source license compatibility
On 2009-02-15 03:44, Theodore Tso wrote: On Sat, Feb 14, 2009 at 09:12:16AM +1300, Brian E Carpenter wrote: Or afterwards, since the license a contributor grants to the IETF Trust is non-exclusive. So contributing these words to the IETF does not affect in any way my ability to do as I wish with them after hitting the Send button. This is true, although it may be non-obvious to the reader of an RFC that this is the case. Is it really the case that current IETF polices and procedures do not allow the addition of a copyright statement saying that the code in question is also licensed under some other (preferably BSD-style) license? If so, perhaps the reason for that restriction should be reconsidered? I'll leave the legal answer to a legal person, but in my mind the current rule doesn't forbid a factual statement in the document that a license such as you suggest below has been issued for (part of) the text. Or perhaps another way of solving this problem would be to allow the author of the code in question to file an IPR disclosure stating that I, John Q. Smith, am the author of the code found in RFC XXX, and I hereby also make it available under the terms of the following (BSD-style) license It extends the scope of IPR disclosures somewhat, but it would be a useful annotation. I think this is fairly clearly excluded from the definition of disclosures in RFC3979, but I can't see any reason why the IETF (or the Trust) couldn't provide a repository for such licenses. Brian ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IETF and open source license compatibility
Harald Alvestrand har...@alvestrand.no writes: Simon Josefsson wrote: actually that's intended to be permitted by RFC 5377 section 4.2: 4.2. Rights Granted for Quoting from IETF Contributions There is rough consensus that it is useful to permit quoting without modification of excerpts from IETF Contributions. Such excerpts may be of any length and in any context. Translation of quotations is also to be permitted. All such quotations should be attributed properly to the IETF and the IETF Contribution from which they are taken. You're not permitted to modify the text. You are permitted to use it. Exactly, and disallowing modifications prevents using the text of an RFC as a comment in implementations licensed under free software licenses. For short excerpts, one can use the text anyway and claim fair use, but larger excerpts can be useful to quote in comments or documentation and then there is a problem. I consider the inability to include immutable text in software released under the GPL a bug in the GPL. Nobody forces you to use the GPL, so if you perceive a problem I suggest to use another license for your program. However, the IETF should not prevent implementers from using the GPL, for the same reasons IETF should not prevent Microsoft from using its EULA as the license. BTW, this means that at least one program I have released under the GPL is illegal; it includes the GPL as a part of the source code, and since the GPL text is immutable according to the GPL, it is illegal (by this logic) to include it in source code, since the source has to be free of restrictions upon its modification. I don't see how that makes the program illegal. It just makes it harder for others to redistribute it safely because the licensing information is unclear. /Simon ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Including the GPL in GPL code (Re: IETF and open source license compatibility)
Simon Josefsson wrote: I consider the inability to include immutable text in software released under the GPL a bug in the GPL. Nobody forces you to use the GPL, so if you perceive a problem I suggest to use another license for your program. However, the IETF should not prevent implementers from using the GPL, for the same reasons IETF should not prevent Microsoft from using its EULA as the license. BTW, this means that at least one program I have released under the GPL is illegal; it includes the GPL as a part of the source code, and since the GPL text is immutable according to the GPL, it is illegal (by this logic) to include it in source code, since the source has to be free of restrictions upon its modification. I don't see how that makes the program illegal. It just makes it harder for others to redistribute it safely because the licensing information is unclear. Simon, the example is at http://counter.li.org/scripts/machine-update. Take a look. There is a single file that contains both the program source and the GPL. I want to release this under the GPL. Now, I have three possible interpretations: 1 - The words of the GPL that say Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed. don't really apply in this case. 2 - The words of the GPL that say You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above don't apply to modifications of the portion of the Program that is the GPL 3 - I'm breaking the GPL Now, with your extensive knowledge of what the GPL means for included text which is it? Harald ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IETF and open source license compatibility
Simon Josefsson wrote: Nobody forces you to use the GPL, so if you perceive a problem I suggest to use another license for your program. Unless your starting code is using the GPL, then you are forced to use the GPL and are not *free* to use any other license without permission from the copyright holder(s). Ironic. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IETF and open source license compatibility
Steven M. Bellovin s...@cs.columbia.edu writes: On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 21:38:44 +0100 Simon Josefsson si...@josefsson.org wrote: The discussion started by Stephan suggesting that free software authors publish their work as free standards in the IETF. My point was that since the IETF disallow publishing standards under a license that is compatible with free software licensing (e.g., allows modification), it is not possible for free software authors to do this. Thus, to me, this discussion is not related to comments in source code at all. My understanding of IETF policy is that the IETF will publish I-Ds that are in the public domain. Nothing is freer than that. You're perfectly free to put your text in the public domain before submitting it for publication as an RFC. Sure, but I can also put the text under the Microsoft EULA before submitting it for publication as an RFC. The IETF still requires some assurances from me as contributor, and those assurances go beyond both what the public domain and the Microsoft EULA implies. A more interesting question is if you can submit somebody else's public domain work to the IETF. I don't know the answer to that. It seems clear that I can't take a work licensed under the Microsoft EULA and submit it to the IETF though. /Simon ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Including the GPL in GPL code (Re: IETF and open source license compatibility)
This is getting off-topic, and seems like typical FAQ material, but I'll reply briefly. I suggest using, e.g., discuss...@fsfeurope.org to get other people's interpretations. If you want a more authoritative answer, talk to licens...@gnu.org. Harald Alvestrand har...@alvestrand.no writes: BTW, this means that at least one program I have released under the GPL is illegal; it includes the GPL as a part of the source code, and since the GPL text is immutable according to the GPL, it is illegal (by this logic) to include it in source code, since the source has to be free of restrictions upon its modification. I don't see how that makes the program illegal. It just makes it harder for others to redistribute it safely because the licensing information is unclear. Simon, the example is at http://counter.li.org/scripts/machine-update. Take a look. There is a single file that contains both the program source and the GPL. I want to release this under the GPL. You can't release the text of the GPL under the GPL license, since you are not the copyright holder of the text in the GPL license. Further, the license of the GPL text does not permit re-licensing, or even modifications. Now, I have three possible interpretations: 1 - The words of the GPL that say Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed. don't really apply in this case. That interpretation seems clearly bogus to me. 2 - The words of the GPL that say You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above don't apply to modifications of the portion of the Program that is the GPL This seems more or less correct, even though it may sound surprising at first. More generally, and more clearly expressed, it can be stated as this: The license for a piece of work applies to the piece of work, it does not apply to the license itself. The license of a work is not normally not considered part of the work; it is metadata about the work. 3 - I'm breaking the GPL That may hold as well, but without further elaboration I can't tell for sure. I compared the part of your work that consists of the GPL text with the canonical version [1]. It seems that someone has modified the license text: the section 'How to Apply These Terms to Your New Programs' is missing. If you had read that section, you would know of a better way to explain the licensing conditions to users that would have avoided the problem. I believe this violate the license on the GPL itself, so you may want to fix it. However, I don't think the FSF will care significantly about that problem. For more information, see: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-howto.html Now, with your extensive knowledge of what the GPL means for included text which is it? Your question comes up and is answered in Debian mailing lists from time to time: some people claim that Debian cannot distribute the GPL license text because it is not licensed under a free software license. /Simon [1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.txt ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Including the GPL in GPL code (Re: IETF and open source license compatibility)
Simon Josefsson wrote: This is getting off-topic, and seems like typical FAQ material, but I'll reply briefly. I suggest using, e.g., discuss...@fsfeurope.org to get other people's interpretations. If you want a more authoritative answer, talk to licens...@gnu.org. 2 - The words of the GPL that say You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above don't apply to modifications of the portion of the Program that is the GPL This seems more or less correct, even though it may sound surprising at first. More generally, and more clearly expressed, it can be stated as this: The license for a piece of work applies to the piece of work, it does not apply to the license itself. The license of a work is not normally not considered part of the work; it is metadata about the work. But (and the reason why this is important, and IETF-relevant) how is this case different from the case where you introduce pieces of an RFC (which also don't need to be considered part of the work) as comments into a work? With the GPL text, you don't have the copyright, and you don't have a license that permits modified versions. But you do have the right to copy it. With the excerpt from an RFC, you don't have the copyright, and you don't have a license that permits modified versions. But you do have the right to copy it - you even have the right to copy pieces of it. Why are you insisting that the first is perfectly reasonable, and the second is a show-stopper? Harald ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IETF and open source license compatibility
A more interesting question is if you can submit somebody else's public domain work to the IETF. I don't know the answer to that. Legally, yes; it's public domain. Academic honesty and common courtesy would demand an acknowledgment. more than that - the standards process requires an acknowledgment of all significant contributers so an acknowledgment is required Scott ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IETF and open source license compatibility
On Fri, 13 Feb 2009 11:48:08 +0100 Simon Josefsson si...@josefsson.org wrote: Steven M. Bellovin s...@cs.columbia.edu writes: On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 21:38:44 +0100 Simon Josefsson si...@josefsson.org wrote: The discussion started by Stephan suggesting that free software authors publish their work as free standards in the IETF. My point was that since the IETF disallow publishing standards under a license that is compatible with free software licensing (e.g., allows modification), it is not possible for free software authors to do this. Thus, to me, this discussion is not related to comments in source code at all. My understanding of IETF policy is that the IETF will publish I-Ds that are in the public domain. Nothing is freer than that. You're perfectly free to put your text in the public domain before submitting it for publication as an RFC. Sure, but I can also put the text under the Microsoft EULA before submitting it for publication as an RFC. The IETF still requires some assurances from me as contributor, and those assurances go beyond both what the public domain and the Microsoft EULA implies. A more interesting question is if you can submit somebody else's public domain work to the IETF. I don't know the answer to that. Legally, yes; it's public domain. Academic honesty and common courtesy would demand an acknowledgment. It seems clear that I can't take a work licensed under the Microsoft EULA and submit it to the IETF though. Right, which is why I suggested public domain and not the Microsoft EULA More generally: if the goal is to have some text that can be freely used in any software -- proprietary, open source, GPL -- there's nothing more amenable to that than public domain. That may not meet all of the FSF's goals, but I don't really see that that's the IETF's problem. --Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Including the GPL in GPL code (Re: IETF and open source license compatibility)
Simon Josefsson wrote: Generally, however, I think this question is very different from where this thread started. It started, as far as I consider, with Stephan suggesting that free software authors publish free (as in licensed under a free software license) standards in the IETF. That is not possible, and is unrelated to the question we discuss here. BTW, why cannot a free software author license some particular standards text under both RFC 5378 terms, and some other license (a free software license, or even GPL)? Presumably, he/she owns the copyright, and 5378 terms are non-exclusive. Obviously, for collaborative efforts this may require that all copyright holders agree, and that may make this unpractical. But I wonder if there was some other reason? Best regards, Pasi ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Including the GPL in GPL code (Re: IETF and open source license compatibility)
pasi.ero...@nokia.com writes: Simon Josefsson wrote: Generally, however, I think this question is very different from where this thread started. It started, as far as I consider, with Stephan suggesting that free software authors publish free (as in licensed under a free software license) standards in the IETF. That is not possible, and is unrelated to the question we discuss here. BTW, why cannot a free software author license some particular standards text under both RFC 5378 terms, and some other license (a free software license, or even GPL)? Presumably, he/she owns the copyright, and 5378 terms are non-exclusive. Obviously, for collaborative efforts this may require that all copyright holders agree, and that may make this unpractical. But I wonder if there was some other reason? No, that approach works fine as far as I can see. It has been used for some documents, and parts of some documents, already. That doesn't make the standard published by the IETF free as in free software licensed though. I admit this is a subtle distinction, and given the discussion, I must have explained this poorly. /Simon ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Including the GPL in GPL code (Re: IETF and open source license compatibility)
Harald Alvestrand wrote: Simon, the example is at http://counter.li.org/scripts/machine-update. Take a look. There is a single file that contains both the program source and the GPL. I want to release this under the GPL. Now, I have three possible interpretations: 1 - The words of the GPL that say Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed. don't really apply in this case. 2 - The words of the GPL that say You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above don't apply to modifications of the portion of the Program that is the GPL 3 - I'm breaking the GPL Now, with your extensive knowledge of what the GPL means for included text which is it? 4 - The contradiction in licensing terms turns the work licensed by its own terms, that are not exactly those of the GPL. Furthermore, the original copyright holder breached the GPL *text* copyright. He did not breached the GPL itself since he is the original author of the work. The intent of the original copyright holder is clear however, despite a minor glith in document distribution. Simon and I and anyone else who whish to create derivative works under the GPL can fix it, and not carry forward the contradiction in licensing terms (the Harald intent above is not clear, the referenced work is not his work, and it is already released). Anyway, Harald highlighted a corner case in GPL licensing that creates some inconvenience (can't put GPL text in GPL'ed work, it must remain meta-data). IETF as a *document* editor is expected to use licensing terms that reasonably fits its purpose. The audience lobbyed by Simon should just live by inconvenience created by IETF licensing terms (no RFC text in GPL'ed software beyond fair use - it must remain as separate documentation). Routine open software distribution abide by these rules. Please preserve the integrity of IETF rules addressing the needs of a broader and a more diversified audience than the one lobbied by Simon. Regards, -- - Thierry Moreau ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
(Re: IETF and open source license compatibility)
On Fri, 13 Feb 2009 12:57:02 +0100 Simon Josefsson si...@josefsson.org wrote: Harald Alvestrand har...@alvestrand.no writes: This seems more or less correct, even though it may sound surprising at first. More generally, and more clearly expressed, it can be stated as this: The license for a piece of work applies to the piece of work, it does not apply to the license itself. The license of a work is not normally not considered part of the work; it is metadata about the work. But (and the reason why this is important, and IETF-relevant) how is this case different from the case where you introduce pieces of an RFC (which also don't need to be considered part of the work) as comments into a work? The only way I can see to avoid having the comment be part of the work is to use different licenses for the code and the comment. (Do you see any other way?) That is possible, but leads to problems. The result is a complex license on the combined work. The combined license says essentially something like License A applies to portion X and the IETF Trust License applies to portion Y. That combined license may not be compatible with other licenses, both free and non-free licenses. For example, the combined license would not be compatible with the GPL because modifications of the entire work is not permitted. I believe it is possible to find proprietary licenses that have other clauses that render the license incompatible with the IETF Trust license. So the problem is wider than just free software licenses. I believe the IETF needs to realize that GPL software runs part of the Internet and that catering to these licensing needs is as important as catering to the licensing needs of, say, Microsoft. The license compatibility question is more relevant for free software because people are more conservative in evaluating software licenses in the free software community compared to the enterprise setting where licenses are typically only ever evaluated when someone sues or is sued by someone. My point has been that triggering this situation works counter to the goal of the IETF. In a strict setting, it means implementers cannot use verbatim text from RFCs, but needs to rewrite the text to avoid re-use of material under the IETF Trust license. I believe that opens up for interoperability problems (when a re-written comment is subtly different from the original meaning, and the comment influences code). If people decide that this rewriting needs to happen to avoid contamination from the IETF Trust license, it would also delay getting IETF protocols deployed. This has been my rationale for suggesting that IETF documents should be licensed under a free software compatible license. I am aware that battle is already lost, so I have mixed feelings about discussing this further. However if others bring up related topics I feel a need to respond. My hope is that it is possible to alter the policies in the future. Fortunately, I believe the new BCP 78 has created good ground to make that possible. Generally, however, I think this question is very different from where this thread started. It started, as far as I consider, with Stephan suggesting that free software authors publish free (as in licensed under a free software license) standards in the IETF. That is not possible, and is unrelated to the question we discuss here. I'm happy to discuss both questions, but I'm concerned that you and others may believe that you dispute my first claim by discussing this separate issue. With the GPL text, you don't have the copyright, and you don't have a license that permits modified versions. But you do have the right to copy it. With the excerpt from an RFC, you don't have the copyright, and you don't have a license that permits modified versions. But you do have the right to copy it - you even have the right to copy pieces of it. Why are you insisting that the first is perfectly reasonable, and the second is a show-stopper? I'm not saying the second is a show stopper. The Internet appears to work relatively well on most days. However, I insist that it is a potential impediment and that it works counter to the goals of the IETF. This kind of complexity will end up having all kinds of unfortunate consequences. To give but one example I do some development work for Debian and Ubuntu (a major derivative of Ubuntu). Debian has a long standing policy on licensing requirements for inclusion of software in Debian (I'm not asking you to accept any value judgements about the goodness or badness of these requiements, they are what they are). One requirement is that the work be freely modifiable. As a result, RFCs and IETF drafts are not acceptable. Any substantial quote that carried the same licensing requirements would have to be removed. Another requirement is that software sources be shipped in their preferred form for modification. Obfuscated code is not allowed. Removing
Re: IETF and open source license compatibility
On 2009-02-13 16:47, Steven M. Bellovin wrote: On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 21:38:44 +0100 Simon Josefsson si...@josefsson.org wrote: The discussion started by Stephan suggesting that free software authors publish their work as free standards in the IETF. My point was that since the IETF disallow publishing standards under a license that is compatible with free software licensing (e.g., allows modification), it is not possible for free software authors to do this. Thus, to me, this discussion is not related to comments in source code at all. My understanding of IETF policy is that the IETF will publish I-Ds that are in the public domain. Nothing is freer than that. You're perfectly free to put your text in the public domain before submitting it for publication as an RFC. Or afterwards, since the license a contributor grants to the IETF Trust is non-exclusive. So contributing these words to the IETF does not affect in any way my ability to do as I wish with them after hitting the Send button. Brian ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IETF and open source license compatibility (Was: Re: yet another comment on draft-housley-tls-authz-extns-07.txt)
On Thu, 12 Feb 2009, Jari Arkko wrote: I agree that there are problematic case, but I believe I hope everyone realizes this is only the case if the RFC in question has code. Otherwise it really does not matter. Only some RFCs have code. Except that it prevents using the text of an RFC as comments in an implementation. Tony. -- f.anthony.n.finch d...@dotat.at http://dotat.at/ GERMAN BIGHT HUMBER: SOUTHWEST 5 TO 7. MODERATE OR ROUGH. SQUALLY SHOWERS. MODERATE OR GOOD. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IETF and open source license compatibility (Was: Re: yet another comment on draft-housley-tls-authz-extns-07.txt)
Tony, Except that it prevents using the text of an RFC as comments in an implementation. OK -- I can see how that would be useful, but its not clear to me that it would necessarily be a blocking requirement. Reality check: I'm writing this e-mail to you and at least my side application, OS, and the first couple of hops are completely pure open source yet every protocol I use before until L2 is from an IETF RFC. Maybe the same on your side. And somehow that code got written, presumably without lots of copying of RFC text... And I can think of some RFCs where I'd rather not use that text... (Comments? Who needs comments?) But in any case, I wouldn't mind if we experimented with a more relaxed license for some set of RFCs... Jari ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IETF and open source license compatibility (Was: Re: yet another comment on draft-housley-tls-authz-extns-07.txt)
Excerpts from Rémi Denis-Courmont on Thu, Feb 12, 2009 03:03:02PM +0200: Oh, I was one relevant working group mailing lists. But from my experience, I was not at all taken seriously, until I started showing up at the meetings. In other words, remote participation does _not_ really work, in this venue, and on-site participation is often not possible. Given recent corporate budget changes I expect that getting things done outside of face-to-face meetings is going to become more important for others, so we can hope that this situation will improve. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IETF and open source license compatibility (Was: Re: yet another comment on draft-housley-tls-authz-extns-07.txt)
Jari Arkko wrote: Except that it prevents using the text of an RFC as comments in an implementation. OK -- I can see how that would be useful, but its not clear to me that it would necessarily be a blocking requirement. Jari is right about this. For a bit of perspective, FSF distributes the text of the GPL under these terms: Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed. It is common to prohibit derivative works of standards and licenses, to keep standards standard and to prevent, e.g., more- or less-restrictive versions of licenses from being attributed to the original author. These documents are treated very differently from source code. Aaron ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IETF and open source license compatibility (Was: Re: yet another comment on draft-housley-tls-authz-extns-07.txt)
Tony Finch wrote: On Thu, 12 Feb 2009, Jari Arkko wrote: I agree that there are problematic case, but I believe I hope everyone realizes this is only the case if the RFC in question has code. Otherwise it really does not matter. Only some RFCs have code. Except that it prevents using the text of an RFC as comments in an implementation. actually that's intended to be permitted by RFC 5377 section 4.2: 4.2. Rights Granted for Quoting from IETF Contributions There is rough consensus that it is useful to permit quoting without modification of excerpts from IETF Contributions. Such excerpts may be of any length and in any context. Translation of quotations is also to be permitted. All such quotations should be attributed properly to the IETF and the IETF Contribution from which they are taken. You're not permitted to modify the text. You are permitted to use it. Harald ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IETF and open source license compatibility (Was: Re: yet another comment on draft-housley-tls-authz-extns-07.txt)
On Thu, 12 Feb 2009, Harald Alvestrand wrote: actually that's intended to be permitted by RFC 5377 section 4.2: Oh, that's nice :-) Tony. -- f.anthony.n.finch d...@dotat.at http://dotat.at/ GERMAN BIGHT HUMBER: SOUTHWEST 5 TO 7. MODERATE OR ROUGH. SQUALLY SHOWERS. MODERATE OR GOOD. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IETF and open source license compatibility (Was: Re: yet another comment on draft-housley-tls-authz-extns-07.txt)
Harald, Margaret, and Simon, Harald wrote actually that's intended to be permitted by RFC 5377 section 4.2: and Margaret wrote: However, I don't think that anyone actually believes that the IETF will track down people who copy RFC text into comments and sue them or attempt to get injunctions against them. (2) Even if the IETF did try to sue you for copying sections of RFC text into your source code comments, they'd almost certainly lose So it seems that we actually do have at least some ability to deal with comment-style use of RFCs fragments in free software. Simon, do you see any residual issues that we need to solve, or were your concerns in areas other than comments? Jari ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IETF and open source license compatibility (Was: Re: yet another comment on draft-housley-tls-authz-extns-07.txt)
Dear Jari et al.; On Feb 12, 2009, at 12:25 PM, Jari Arkko wrote: Harald, Margaret, and Simon, Harald wrote actually that's intended to be permitted by RFC 5377 section 4.2: and Margaret wrote: However, I don't think that anyone actually believes that the IETF will track down people who copy RFC text into comments and sue them or attempt to get injunctions against them. (2) Even if the IETF did try to sue you for copying sections of RFC text into your source code comments, they'd almost certainly lose So it seems that we actually do have at least some ability to deal with comment-style use of RFCs fragments in free software. Simon, do you see any residual issues that we need to solve, or were your concerns in areas other than comments? I am not a lawyer, but I don't believe that the IETF has no legal existence and thus cannot sue. Any IETF suits would have to come from the Trust. If there are issues, the Trust can solve them by warranting that they will not sue under given conditions, as is being done with the Trust Legal Provisions. Marshall Jari ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IETF and open source license compatibility
Jari Arkko jari.ar...@piuha.net writes: Simon, That's not possible because the IETF policies does not permit free software compatible licensing on Internet drafts published by the IETF. ... See RFC 5378: It is also important to note that additional copyright notices are not permitted in IETF Documents except ... ... The IETF copying conditions are not compatible with free software licenses (modification is not allowed), and additional copyright notices are not permitted. The vast majority of free software licenses is built on the concept of copyright notices and requires preserving the copyright notice. I agree that there are problematic case, but I believe I hope everyone realizes this is only the case if the RFC in question has code. Otherwise it really does not matter. Only some RFCs have code. I don't realize that, and completely disagree. If you want free software authors to publish free standards (as in free software compatible) in the IETF, the IETF needs to allow free software compatible licensing of their work. Right now, the IETF disallow standards published through the IETF to be licensed under a free software compatible license. The only alternative for these authors is to release their work outside of the IETF. This may result in some free software authors doesn't bother publishing their work in the IETF because the licensing models are incompatible. I support experiments in this space, though. And it would be really good to get more of the open source folk participate in IETF specification work. There are many important open source extensions and protocols that fit in IETF's scope but were never documented. Even if source code is freely available, you could have several implementations, commercial vs. open source interoperability issues, etc. I agree. /Simon ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IETF and open source license compatibility
Jari Arkko jari.ar...@piuha.net writes: Harald, Margaret, and Simon, Harald wrote actually that's intended to be permitted by RFC 5377 section 4.2: and Margaret wrote: However, I don't think that anyone actually believes that the IETF will track down people who copy RFC text into comments and sue them or attempt to get injunctions against them. (2) Even if the IETF did try to sue you for copying sections of RFC text into your source code comments, they'd almost certainly lose So it seems that we actually do have at least some ability to deal with comment-style use of RFCs fragments in free software. Simon, do you see any residual issues that we need to solve, or were your concerns in areas other than comments? The discussion started by Stephan suggesting that free software authors publish their work as free standards in the IETF. My point was that since the IETF disallow publishing standards under a license that is compatible with free software licensing (e.g., allows modification), it is not possible for free software authors to do this. Thus, to me, this discussion is not related to comments in source code at all. /Simon ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IETF and open source license compatibility
Simon Josefsson wrote: Jari Arkko jari.ar...@piuha.net writes: Simon, That's not possible because the IETF policies does not permit free software compatible licensing on Internet drafts published by the IETF. ... See RFC 5378: It is also important to note that additional copyright notices are not permitted in IETF Documents except ... ... The IETF copying conditions are not compatible with free software licenses (modification is not allowed), and additional copyright notices are not permitted. The vast majority of free software licenses is built on the concept of copyright notices and requires preserving the copyright notice. I agree that there are problematic case, but I believe I hope everyone realizes this is only the case if the RFC in question has code. Otherwise it really does not matter. Only some RFCs have code. I don't realize that, and completely disagree. Good point Simon - lets amplify on that thought a tad... Whats the difference between the two of these statements? 1 + 1 = 2 and One plus one equals two One is a formula (i.e. code) and the other not? This is the same point I brought out about controls in I-D's and RFC's per se, the code can be in any numbers of forms including actual code (as encoded), pseudo code, or just the written description of that process. All of these form code in one derivative form or another and as such all of them need to be covered. If you want free software authors to publish free standards (as in free software compatible) in the IETF, the IETF needs to allow free software compatible licensing of their work. Right now, the IETF disallow standards published through the IETF to be licensed under a free software compatible license. The only alternative for these authors is to release their work outside of the IETF. This may result in some free software authors doesn't bother publishing their work in the IETF because the licensing models are incompatible. I support experiments in this space, though. And it would be really good to get more of the open source folk participate in IETF specification work. There are many important open source extensions and protocols that fit in IETF's scope but were never documented. Even if source code is freely available, you could have several implementations, commercial vs. open source interoperability issues, etc. I agree. /Simon ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IETF and open source license compatibility
I disagree Simon. Free Software authors (for any variety of free software I know of) are free to submit I-Ds describing protocols that they define. They can not take their licensed code, with license restrictions, and put it in the RFC. The primary reason for this restriction, in my view, is that some of the licenses out there would actually interfere with commercial implementations of the RFC if such double-licensing were allowed and done. And just as we want to allow free implementations of the RFCs, we also want to allow commercial implementations of RFCs, for a wide range of commercial goals (just as there are a wide range of free rules and goals.) Preventing folks from putting code with non-IETF licenses into RFCs allows everyone to write RFCs, and allows a wide range of code to be included in RFCs. Making sure that code which is included in RFCs can be used by any implementator, as they need to, is important and useful. Extra licenses distinctly interfere with that. (We do permit references to licensed code in our documents, including specific URLs.) And having a restriction that folks can not take and modify large blocks of text from the RFC does not prevent them from either writing RFCs or implementing protocols defined in RFCs. Yours, Joel Simon Josefsson wrote: Jari Arkko jari.ar...@piuha.net writes: Simon, That's not possible because the IETF policies does not permit free software compatible licensing on Internet drafts published by the IETF. ... See RFC 5378: It is also important to note that additional copyright notices are not permitted in IETF Documents except ... ... The IETF copying conditions are not compatible with free software licenses (modification is not allowed), and additional copyright notices are not permitted. The vast majority of free software licenses is built on the concept of copyright notices and requires preserving the copyright notice. I agree that there are problematic case, but I believe I hope everyone realizes this is only the case if the RFC in question has code. Otherwise it really does not matter. Only some RFCs have code. I don't realize that, and completely disagree. If you want free software authors to publish free standards (as in free software compatible) in the IETF, the IETF needs to allow free software compatible licensing of their work. Right now, the IETF disallow standards published through the IETF to be licensed under a free software compatible license. The only alternative for these authors is to release their work outside of the IETF. This may result in some free software authors doesn't bother publishing their work in the IETF because the licensing models are incompatible. I support experiments in this space, though. And it would be really good to get more of the open source folk participate in IETF specification work. There are many important open source extensions and protocols that fit in IETF's scope but were never documented. Even if source code is freely available, you could have several implementations, commercial vs. open source interoperability issues, etc. I agree. /Simon ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IETF and open source license compatibility
Joel M. Halpern j...@joelhalpern.com writes: I disagree Simon. Free Software authors (for any variety of free software I know of) are free to submit I-Ds describing protocols that they define. Sure. And some do... They can not take their licensed code, with license restrictions, and put it in the RFC. Right. The primary reason for this restriction, in my view, is that some of the licenses out there would actually interfere with commercial implementations of the RFC if such double-licensing were allowed and done. And just as we want to allow free implementations of the RFCs, we also want to allow commercial implementations of RFCs, for a wide range of commercial goals (just as there are a wide range of free rules and goals.) Right. (However, that doesn't explain why the IETF disallows BSD licensed code in IETF documents.) Preventing folks from putting code with non-IETF licenses into RFCs allows everyone to write RFCs, and allows a wide range of code to be included in RFCs. Making sure that code which is included in RFCs can be used by any implementator, as they need to, is important and useful. Extra licenses distinctly interfere with that. (We do permit references to licensed code in our documents, including specific URLs.) Agreed. And having a restriction that folks can not take and modify large blocks of text from the RFC does not prevent them from either writing RFCs or implementing protocols defined in RFCs. Right. Please re-read what I said earlier, because I don't see any disagreement with what I've claimed before. My claim has been that authors cannot publish free, as in licensed under a free software compatible licensed, documents through the IETF. You explained again that this is the case, and you gave the reasons for this. So we seem to agree. /Simon Yours, Joel Simon Josefsson wrote: Jari Arkko jari.ar...@piuha.net writes: Simon, That's not possible because the IETF policies does not permit free software compatible licensing on Internet drafts published by the IETF. ... See RFC 5378: It is also important to note that additional copyright notices are not permitted in IETF Documents except ... ... The IETF copying conditions are not compatible with free software licenses (modification is not allowed), and additional copyright notices are not permitted. The vast majority of free software licenses is built on the concept of copyright notices and requires preserving the copyright notice. I agree that there are problematic case, but I believe I hope everyone realizes this is only the case if the RFC in question has code. Otherwise it really does not matter. Only some RFCs have code. I don't realize that, and completely disagree. If you want free software authors to publish free standards (as in free software compatible) in the IETF, the IETF needs to allow free software compatible licensing of their work. Right now, the IETF disallow standards published through the IETF to be licensed under a free software compatible license. The only alternative for these authors is to release their work outside of the IETF. This may result in some free software authors doesn't bother publishing their work in the IETF because the licensing models are incompatible. I support experiments in this space, though. And it would be really good to get more of the open source folk participate in IETF specification work. There are many important open source extensions and protocols that fit in IETF's scope but were never documented. Even if source code is freely available, you could have several implementations, commercial vs. open source interoperability issues, etc. I agree. /Simon ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: IETF and open source license compatibility
Some points: 1) Open Source software and 'free software' as defined by the FSF are not the same thing. Historically, open source licenses such as BSD and Apache or in the case of CERN libwww, a grant to the public domain have proved considerably more effective than GNU copyleft. The World wide web code was made public domain rather than being GNU, expressly because we considered the GNU license to be counter-productive to our aims. 2) Those of us who understand RMS's political agenda are more likely to oppose it than to support it. RMS has on numerous occasions stated that his intention in drafting the GNU copyleft was to poison the well of proprietary works. He has made this statement to me personally and unambiguously. That is a political position that many are opposed to. If RMS chooses to place restrictions on FSF intellectual property to enforce compliance with his political views he has no standing when he opposes restrictions placed by others. It is an entirely reasonable point of view for an IPR holder to craft a license grant in such a way that it is only compatible with a subset of open source licenses. In terms of Internet adoption Apache compatibility is sufficient. 3) Write only campaigns decrease sympathy for the position being promoted. I suspect I am not alone in reading only a portion of the FSF correspondence. Statistical sampling indicates a high probability that this is representative. If RMS has an issue with an IETF protocol he should make the case himself, not set his rent-a-mob onto the IETF mailing list. Not a single one of the messages I have read has given a concise explanation of what the problem RMS has with the TLS-authz spec. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IETF and open source license compatibility
Simon Josefsson wrote: Jari Arkko jari.ar...@piuha.net writes: Harald, Margaret, and Simon, Harald wrote actually that's intended to be permitted by RFC 5377 section 4.2: and Margaret wrote: However, I don't think that anyone actually believes that the IETF will track down people who copy RFC text into comments and sue them or attempt to get injunctions against them. (2) Even if the IETF did try to sue you for copying sections of RFC text into your source code comments, they'd almost certainly lose So it seems that we actually do have at least some ability to deal with comment-style use of RFCs fragments in free software. Simon, do you see any residual issues that we need to solve, or were your concerns in areas other than comments? The discussion started by Stephan suggesting that free software authors publish their work as free standards in the IETF. My point was that since the IETF disallow publishing standards under a license that is compatible with free software licensing (e.g., allows modification), it is not possible for free software authors to do this. Thus, to me, this discussion is not related to comments in source code at all. So then just create another IETF Standard for Open Source Licensing. /Simon ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IETF and open source license compatibility
For short excerpts, one can use the text anyway and claim fair use, but larger excerpts can be useful to quote in comments or documentation and then there is a problem. This whole line of reasoning does reminds me of stories about camels jumping through eyse in needles, numbers of angels dancing of pinheads and similar metaphores. There is free/open source software distributed for 20 years or more and all relevated RFCs are included in the resolution as well. I'm not aware that the IETF ever protested against this practice. jaap ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IETF and open source license compatibility
On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 22:03:39 +0100, Simon Josefsson si...@josefsson.org said: SJ The IETF Trust sub-license third parties rights to code components in SJ (new) IETF documents under the BSD license, see section 4 of: SJ http://trustee.ietf.org/docs/IETF-Trust-License-Policy.pdf Thanks! Does anyone else feel that the IETF likes to document things in ways that reflect a maze of twisty passages? We're very good at making many rooms (all 5686 of them) but not so good at marking the passageways between them. -- Wes Hardaker Sparta, Inc. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IETF and open source license compatibility
Simon Josefsson wrote: actually that's intended to be permitted by RFC 5377 section 4.2: 4.2. Rights Granted for Quoting from IETF Contributions There is rough consensus that it is useful to permit quoting without modification of excerpts from IETF Contributions. Such excerpts may be of any length and in any context. Translation of quotations is also to be permitted. All such quotations should be attributed properly to the IETF and the IETF Contribution from which they are taken. You're not permitted to modify the text. You are permitted to use it. Exactly, and disallowing modifications prevents using the text of an RFC as a comment in implementations licensed under free software licenses. For short excerpts, one can use the text anyway and claim fair use, but larger excerpts can be useful to quote in comments or documentation and then there is a problem. I consider the inability to include immutable text in software released under the GPL a bug in the GPL. BTW, this means that at least one program I have released under the GPL is illegal; it includes the GPL as a part of the source code, and since the GPL text is immutable according to the GPL, it is illegal (by this logic) to include it in source code, since the source has to be free of restrictions upon its modification. Not My Problem to solve. Harald ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IETF and open source license compatibility
On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 21:38:44 +0100 Simon Josefsson si...@josefsson.org wrote: The discussion started by Stephan suggesting that free software authors publish their work as free standards in the IETF. My point was that since the IETF disallow publishing standards under a license that is compatible with free software licensing (e.g., allows modification), it is not possible for free software authors to do this. Thus, to me, this discussion is not related to comments in source code at all. My understanding of IETF policy is that the IETF will publish I-Ds that are in the public domain. Nothing is freer than that. You're perfectly free to put your text in the public domain before submitting it for publication as an RFC. --Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IETF and open source license compatibility
On 12.02.2009, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: 3) Write only campaigns decrease sympathy for the position being promoted. As someone who mainly acts in read-only mode on this list: regardless of what one thinks about free software, I think what troubles me most in the recent campaign is that it has already been partially successful. This essentially political campaign has already disturbed the list. It has already provoked a vivid discussion. As has been pointed out, if campaigns like this are considered as qualified input to IETF, also input from other political pressure groups or professional lobby groups must be considered equally legitimate. This may show bad taste, but does ISO's OOXML ring a bell? - Jukka Ruohonen. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
