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

[Jeffrey Hutzelman]

On Tue, 2012-08-28 at 17:34 -0400, Jeffrey Altman wrote:

> 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.

Well, that's not entirely true.  We couldn't use the RFC Editor to
publish documents that are derivative of the original OpenAFS .xg files
or other source code or documentation released by IBM under that
license.  However, we could do so for other things we produce, including
documents defining new protocols, data structures, and RPCs, and perhaps
even a certain level of documentation of existing protocols.  Exactly
where the line would be is unclear, as it depends on a determination of
what is or is not a derivative work, which ultimately can be determined
only by a court.


That said, I've been thinking about this off and on for a while, and I
think I've come to the conclusion that we are better off publishing our
documents on our own rather than via the independent submission RFC
stream.  The main benefit for us to publishing documents as RFCs is
widespread distribution, archiving, and stable references.  However, it
is much easier today to get those benefits in other ways than it was
when the RFC series was started, and the drawbacks for us are
considerable.  Besides the licensing issues references in this thread,
there are reviews and other process delay that happens for each document
we publish that way.  There are terminology disconnects that will happen
every time we publish a document, since our "standards" are not Internet
standards.  And, we've already agreed to limit the extent to which we
consume RFC Editor resources by publishing only our "standards" as RFCs,
leaving so-called "experimental" documents as Internet-Drafts
indefinitely.


I still believe our working documents should take the form of
Internet-Drafts, and should be distributed via the I-D repository.
However, at this point my position is that we are better off publishing
completed documents ourselves.

-- Jeff