Re: Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents

[Simon Josefsson-2]

All,

The IETF Trust has requested feedback on the license for IETF RFCs, see
announcement below.

As we know, they have decided not to release entire RFCs under DFSG
terms.  The intention is to allow code-like portions to be licensed
under a BSD-like license.

It would be useful if we can review the license for the code-like
portions, to make sure that it meets the requirements of the DFSG.  It
will be harder to change this wording later on.

In this context, I'm worried about one thing:

Section 5 "Supersedure" says that the code-license can be superseded
later on.  How does Debian treat license text that says some code is
released under the BSD license with the caveat that the license can be
changed later on?  The section does limit the superseding to be for
those in writing between the IETF Trust and the licensee, but the
question may still be relevant.

Thanks,
Simon

"Ed Juskevicius" <edj@...> writes:

> Greetings!  The purpose of this message is:
>
> 1) To advise you that the IETF Trustees are working to develop
>    a policy for granting rights in IETF documents as required
>    by draft-ietf-ipr-outbound-rights-06.txt
> 2) To invite your review and comment on a draft version of the
>    policy, and
> 3) To announce that the Trustees have requested the IPR WG
>    convene during IETF 72 to take comments on the draft policy,
>    face to face, in Dublin; the IPR WG meeting is scheduled
>    to meet starting at 13h00 local time on Thursday, July 31st.
>
> The draft policy is available for your review in .doc, .pdf, and
> .txt formats at: http://trustee.ietf.org/policyandprocedures.html.
>
> Policy areas covered by this draft document are as follows:
>
>  1. Licenses to IETF Documents within the Standards Process
>  2. Licenses to IETF Documents outside the Standards Process
>  3. Licenses that are *not* granted
>  4. License to Code Components
>  5. Pre-Existing Documents
>  6. License Limitations
>  7. Text (i.e., "boilerplate") to be included in IETF Documents
>
> Please note that several portions of the text in the draft policy
> are enclosed in <special> brackets. This is to signify text where
> your thoughts and suggestions are particularly invited.
>
> The IETF Trustees would like to be in a position to formally adopt
> a policy soon after the publication of RFC[ipr-outbound-rights]
> and RFC[ipr-inbound-rights].
>
> Your input will be appreciated. Please use the IPR WG mailing list
> for all discussion and comments on this draft.
>
> Best Regards, and Thanks in advance,
>
>
> Ed Juskevicius      Ray Pelletier
> Chair               Trustee
> IETF Trust          IETF Administrative Director

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

[Joe Smith-10]

"Simon Josefsson" <simon@...> wrote in message
news:87myku2hvd.fsf@......

> All,
>
> The IETF Trust has requested feedback on the license for IETF RFCs, see
> announcement below.
>
> As we know, they have decided not to release entire RFCs under DFSG
> terms.  The intention is to allow code-like portions to be licensed
> under a BSD-like license.
>
> It would be useful if we can review the license for the code-like
> portions, to make sure that it meets the requirements of the DFSG.  It
> will be harder to change this wording later on.
>
> In this context, I'm worried about one thing:
>
> Section 5 "Supersedure" says that the code-license can be superseded
> later on.  How does Debian treat license text that says some code is
> released under the BSD license with the caveat that the license can be
> changed later on?  The section does limit the superseding to be for
> those in writing between the IETF Trust and the licensee, but the
> question may still be relevant.
>

If any end user or upstream wishes to enter into an agreement with the IETF
to have different code section licesning terms, that is their business, and
I do not see how that applies to the other users. The existing license grant
should still be valid, since the others did not enter into an agreement
superceding the original.

That whole clause is most likely legally a no-op, since my undertstanding is
that a license can always be superceded by written agrement between the
involved parties.

IANAL, IANADD



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

[Joe Smith-10]

"Simon Josefsson" <simon@...> wrote in message
news:87myku2hvd.fsf@......

> All,
>
> The IETF Trust has requested feedback on the license for IETF RFCs, see
> announcement below.
>
> As we know, they have decided not to release entire RFCs under DFSG
> terms.  The intention is to allow code-like portions to be licensed
> under a BSD-like license.
>
> It would be useful if we can review the license for the code-like
> portions, to make sure that it meets the requirements of the DFSG.  It
> will be harder to change this wording later on.
>
> In this context, I'm worried about one thing:
>
> Section 5 "Supersedure" says that the code-license can be superseded
> later on.  How does Debian treat license text that says some code is
> released under the BSD license with the caveat that the license can be
> changed later on?  The section does limit the superseding to be for
> those in writing between the IETF Trust and the licensee, but the
> question may still be relevant.
>

If any end user or upstream wishes to enter into an agreement with the IETF
to have different code section licesning terms, that is their business, and
I do not see how that applies to the other users. The existing license grant
should still be valid, since the others did not enter into an agreement
superceding the original.

That whole clause is most likely legally a no-op, since my undertstanding is
that a license can always be superceded by written agrement between the
involved parties.

IANAL, IANADD



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...