[AFS3-std] IBM will not re-license OpenAFS .xg files

[Chas Williams (CONTRACTOR)]

In message <87vcg3aokp.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>,Russ Allbery writes:
>This basically makes it impossible to publish, as an RFC, a specification
>for the existing protocol or any new work that is, from a legal
>perspective, a derived work of the existing *.xg files as released by IBM,
>until such time as someone reverse-engineered the protocol specification
>in a clean-room environment, or unless the RFC Editor would be willing to
>publish documents covered by the IBM Public License.

what is the origin of the arla .xg files?  they seem to have the 3-clause
bsd license but if they were written using the ibm documentation they
are potentially tainted.

>(Note that a cogent legal argument can be made that there are no such
>derived works or barriers to publication on the grounds that the existing
>files are not copyrightable, but the RFC Editor lawyers would have to be
>satisfied with such an argument despite what amounts to a contrary opinion
>from IBM.  This strikes me as unlikely.  It's the kind of legal risk that
>the RFC Editor is highly unlikely to take for something that's not IETF
>work and is going through the independent submission track.)

ibm said they didnt want to relicense the files.  that doesnt mean that
the current license is meaningful when it comes to the .xg files since
they are essentially prototypes.