[rfc-i] Copyright and the Independent Stream

Dave Thaler dthaler at microsoft.com
Mon Sep 14 14:10:05 PDT 2009


Regardless of the answer, it would be good to clarify the text in the doc,
as currently it reads like flawed logic.

-Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joel M. Halpern [mailto:jmh at joelhalpern.com]
> Sent: Monday, September 14, 2009 1:16 PM
> To: Dave Thaler
> Cc: draft-braden-independent-submission at tools.ietf.org; rfc-
> interest at rfc-editor.org
> Subject: Re: [rfc-i] Copyright and the Independent Stream
> 
> The basic answer to this reasonable quesiton is - no can do.
> 
> This is admittedly a simplification.  We could create a multiplicity of
> rules, for every imaginable case.  And then no one would understand
> what
> applies whn.
> 
> So, the assumption is that the normal case is unlimited derivative
> works.  For special cases, the ISE will allow "no derivative works."
> If
> you really are in the special corner case of wanting an Independent
> Stream RFC, needing a no-derivative-works rights grant with sufficient
> strength that you can convince the ISE that you really do need it), and
> wanting to allow people to work with the code, put a copy of the code
> somewhere else.  That is not a good answer.  But the alternative is a
> nightmare.
> 
> Yours,
> Joel
> 
> Dave Thaler wrote:
> > I have read and support draft-braden-independent-submission-00.txt
> >
> > I have one question for the authors, which is regarding the last
> > two paragraphs of section 3.
> >
> > This permits "unlimited derivative works" and "no derivative
> > works".  What if authors want "no derivative works" except that
> > any Code Components can be used?
> >
> > The draft currently says:
> >> Note also that this unlimited derivative works policy applies to all
> >> parts of an Independent Stream document, including any code.
> >> Therefore, no separate licensing procedure is required for
> extracting
> >> and adapting code that is contained in an Independent Stream
> >> document.
> >
> > The last sentence in the quoted paragraph above can be read as
> > saying that "no derivative works" means there is no possibility
> > for using code contained in a "no derivative works" RFC either.
> > Suggest swapping the order of the above paragraph and the one
> > that precedes it (about the "no derivative works" possibility),
> > and adding clarifying text that states whether a licensing
> > procedure for code is required in the "no derivative works" case.
> >
> > -Dave
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: rfc-interest-bounces at rfc-editor.org [mailto:rfc-interest-
> >> bounces at rfc-editor.org] On Behalf Of Andrew G. Malis
> >> Sent: Sunday, September 13, 2009 10:48 PM
> >> To: Brian E Carpenter
> >> Cc: rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
> >> Subject: Re: [rfc-i] Copyright and the Independent Stream
> >>
> >> I also support it. Let's see if we can get this resolved quickly.
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> Andy
> >>
> >> On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 10:24 AM, Brian E Carpenter
> >> <brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On 2009-09-11 14:29, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> >>> ...
> >>>> Even that needs some perception of community consensus, though.
> >>>> Hopefully, we can make equally rapid progress in a forward gear.
> >>> Namely, by discussing draft-braden-independent-submission-00.txt
> >>>
> >>> I support it.
> >>>
> >>>   Brian
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> rfc-interest mailing list
> >>> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
> >>> http://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
> >>>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> rfc-interest mailing list
> >> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
> >> http://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > rfc-interest mailing list
> > rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
> > http://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
> >




More information about the rfc-interest mailing list