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

[Russ Allbery]

"Chas Williams (CONTRACTOR)" <chas@cmf.nrl.navy.mil> writes:
> 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.

Ah, yes, that's a good point.  Those may be clean-room reimplementations,
in which case they could be used as a starting point.

>> (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.

My opinion of what we've heard from IBM, which is admittedly based on
second-hand information and is purely my personal opinion, is that IBM
believes the files are covered under the IBM Public License and are
copyrightable.  Whether they would bother to try to defend that position,
or would even continue to hold that position if it were seriously
challenged, is another question on which I would not speculate.  I think
they hold the position by default, rather than as a considered legal
opinion.  But that's my impression of their position.

I have no intention of pursuing any of this further and don't plan to have
any further involvement in the problem, so other people should absolutely
feel free to discount or disregard that opinion and proceed via whatever
course of action they feel is appropriate.  It will be very difficult to
get IBM to express any sort of opinion on the record or in public, if past
experience is any guide.  (Which makes sense from a lawyer's perspective;
silence does them no harm.)

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu)             <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>