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

[Jeffrey Altman]

 On 7/13/2010 10:38 PM, Marcus Watts wrote:
>
> 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:

Are you placing the UMich copyright on your code or on the Internet
Draft you are submitting for standardization?

It makes a big difference.

Jeffrey Altman