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

[Jeffrey Hutzelman]

--On Tuesday, July 13, 2010 10:38:14 PM -0400 Marcus Watts <mdw@umich.edu> 
wrote:

>> 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.

What Simon is saying is that this issue has already been discussed quite 
extensively, and you would be wise to review that discussion before 
attempting to revisit it from scratch.


> 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.

We're likely going to have to have an extensive discussion about exactly 
what we want to do with IPR issues on afs3-stds submissions.  Among other 
things, since this document was drafted, the IETF has learned some things 
about what works and what doesn't and where some of the pitfalls are. 
BCP78 and the particular set of rights grants required for both IETF and 
independent submissions have changed in the interim.

I want to stress that what the registrars are looking for right now is 
buy-in from the community for the process in general and the elections 
process in particular, so we can proceed with elections.  We're _not_ 
looking for formal adoption of all the particulars and especially the 
details of how IPR is handled -- that will be one of the group's first 
tasks once we have chairs.  So, while I'm absolutely not trying to cut off 
this discussion, I'm not expecting to see a quick consensus on the IPR 
provisions and am not planning on treating lack of such as a bar to 
conducting an election.



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

The requirement as written is that every submission include the specific 
text from the document, or a reference to it.  So no, including some other 
copyright instead does not satisfy the requirement.  This is fairly 
important, because it means that everyone knows that everyone participating 
is granting the required rights on their submissions, instead of having to 
evaluate a new copyright from every contributor.

-- Jeff