[rfc-i] Copyright and the Independent Stream

[Joel M. Halpern]

After chatting with Dave off-line to make sure I understood him,
the text in Section 3 needs minor clarification.
Currently it reads:
    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.

This leads to the question Dave (and others) have asked.
My suggested fix, if folks find it workable, would be
    Note also that this unlimited derivative works policy applies to all
    parts of an Independent Stream document, including any code.
    Therefore, for documents submitted under the preferred unlimited
    derivative works policy, no separate licensing procedure is
    required for extracting and adapting code that is contained in
    an Independent Stream document.  Code may not be extract and
    adapted from Independent Stream documents submitted under the
    no derivative works terms.

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
>