[AFS3-std] Copyright, internet-drafts and .xg files

[Marcus Watts]

> Date:    Wed, 24 Feb 2010 19:08:41 GMT
> To:      afs3-standardization@openafs.org
> From:    Simon Wilkinson <simon@sxw.org.uk>
> Subject: [AFS3-std] Copyright, internet-drafts and .xg files
> 
> Whilst I've been working on consolidating all of the AFS RPC refresh =
> proposals, I've come across what I believe is a general problem with the =
> copyright of our existing XG files, and the internet draft process.
> 
> Our XG files, as with most of the rest of OpenAFS, are distributed under =
> the IBM public license, and copyright IBM + contributors. As far as my =
> woefully limited knowledge of copyright law goes, any derivatives of =
> these RPCs would have to be under a similar license.
> 
> This means that I (as a document author) cannot grant to the IETF Trust =
> any of the provisions required by RFC5738. Now, we're in theory =
> targeting the Independent stream with our documents, so this may not be =
> an issue, although many of the tools I have tried don't support =
> documents without 5738 boilerplate particularly well.
> 
> Finally, it does raise the question of what the copyright of the =
> finished document actually is. Is the new standardisation document, in =
> effect, a derivative of the original XG files, and so IPL'd? Are the XDR =
> and RPC descriptions contained within that document under the IPL, and =
> so unusable by GPL (or commercial) implementors?
> 
> Sorry to open this can of worms...
> 
> Simon.

It's "fair use".  Fair use (at least under US laws which should apply
here) allow you to quote "brief" portions of something for "review"
purposes.  There's also a "forms" exemption that might apply here -
you can't copyright forms that you fill out, and an rpc grammar is
(arguably) the electronic equivalent to a form.

Caveat.  I'm not a lawyer.  Of course, I'm also far cheaper, and worth
every penny you paid me.

				-Marcus Watts