[AFS3-std] Consensus Call - AFS3-Standardization Charter

[Marcus Watts]

> Date:    Tue, 13 Jul 2010 22:23:34 BST
> To:      Marcus Watts <mdw@umich.edu>
> cc:      afs3-standardization@openafs.org
> From:    Simon Wilkinson <simon@sxw.org.uk>
> Subject: Re: [AFS3-std] Consensus Call - AFS3-Standardization Charter 
> 
> On 13 Jul 2010, at 22:05, Marcus Watts wrote:
> 
> > 3. The copyright thing seems overly onerous.  It also seems largely
> >   derived from section 5 of BCP 78.  Except for E, which seems to
> >   be unique to this document.  Can this really be an invitation to
> >   document features with i386 machine language?  Regardless, I think
> >   this is overly prescriptive.
> 
> We did this to death in July 2008. Essentially, our hands are slightly =
> tied by our desire to use the Independent Submissions process for our =
> document series. Essentially, that requires that we use a defined =
> copyright boiler plate, although it permits us to add additional =
> clauses. Russ raised the issue that AFS standards documents should be =
> freely redistributable which clause E), which came from Jeffrey H, aims =
> to resolve. If you're interested in more of the background, I'd advise =
> reading the list archives from that month.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Simon.
> 

Yes, you did this "to death".  But the question here is not who
wants to enter the steel cage of death, but what did we think of
the result that came out.

For me, the thing I want to avoid having is a copyright statement
I have to show the umich lawyers and ask them what it means.  I'm
quite likely to decide that's a rathole I'd rather not dive into.

The "freely" redistribution is quite noble and good, but that's
not a independent submissions process requirement, that's an
additional requirement you've added.  In the text you got
from jhutz, the "freely" redistributable part is already in the
preamble and in section C.  B could be folded into C by removing
the "other than translations" clause.  E merely duplicates C, then
adds patent text that's not copyright, and is most likely already
covered by the bcp 78 submissions process.  Of course, if
you actually wanted "freely usable", and not just "freely
redistributable" you might not want this patent clause.

So the question I'll ask at this point is whether the umich copyright
I've been adding to my contributions meets this standard?

				-Marcus Watts