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

[Jason Edgecombe]

On 08/28/2012 05:34 PM, Jeffrey Altman wrote:
> Unlike Russ, I have had direct discussions with various IBM attorneys
> over the last five years.  There is more than reasonable evidence to
> support the position that when IBM released the IBM DeveloperWorks
> OpenAFS source package and wrapped it with the IBM Public License 1.0
> that the license was intended to apply to all source files within the
> source package that were not copyright by another party.  As part of the
> process of creating the first OpenAFS.org release the license was
> applied in that fashion to each and every source file in the tree which
> makes it hard to argue that the community founders didn't agree with
> that interpretation.
>
> Altering the license text on the .xg files was not the only change that
> was requested of IBM.  The OpenAFS Elders also pursued altering the
> licensing on rx which could have been released as public domain based
> upon the DARPA funding that originally created it.  We also pursued
> changing the license on the documentation.
>
> I believe that interfaces should not be copyrightable.  However, there
> is no law to that effect and recent court decisions in the Oracle vs
> Google case over the use of a Java-like programming language and
> associated class libraries left a very murky picture of how courts would
> rule.  I am not a lawyer but my interpretation of the decision was that
> the Java interfaces are copyrighted but that Google did not violate the
> copyright and hence there were no damages.
> This decision is of course being appealed.
>
> In any case, over the last seven years I have held out hope that if only
> the right person within IBM could be found that the licensing could be
> changed and that IBM would relinquish the "AFS" and "OpenAFS"
> trademarks.  I am now convinced that the discussions have reached an end
> and that there are no stones left unturned.
>
> Jason asked what the impact of this decision has on the AFS3
> standardization process.  This decision means that the IETF and the RFC
> Editor cannot be used to publish archival copies of protocol documents
> that are created by this group.  This group can still publish documents
> on a web site of its own, via mailing list archives, or many other
> methods.
>
> Jeffrey Altman
>
Thanks to everyone for the explanations.

What should be done next?

I've see two workable options:
1. make clean-room implementation.(lots of effort, but desirable)
2. post protocol documentation on a non-IETF web site. (short-term 
option, less desirable)

What are the opinions on the different options? Which options should be 
pursued?

It sounds like the Arla headers might be tainted. How does one go about 
doing a clean-room implementation of the documentation of a protocol? 
Can you use the wireshark with the built-in AFS decoder possibly taint 
the work that was done with it?

If we start a re-documentation effort, where can we store it? Where 
should we store it? Should the .xg format or some other format (XML? 
spreadsheet?) be used?

Thanks,
Jason