Subject: [TOOLS-DEVELOPMENT] TMC Call Notes 6-15-07

From: Ray Pelletier <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 11:22:05 -0400

TMC Call 6-15-07

NSS
Dinara
Jeff
Barbara

IETF
Russ
Ray
Brian
Henrik
Bob
Cullen
Jorge

Agenda

1. Open Source License Recommendation to IETF Trust

OSL 3.0?

Jorge -
I have reservations about OSL for a number of reasons:

-- its coverage of "Derivative Works", which is reminiscent of the GPL
(and may make some companies nervous),

-- the "warranty" that license (IETF Trust?) would be required to make
under Section 7,

-- defensive suspension clause in Section 10 (which will potentially
limit widespread use of the software).

Jorge - not sure who behind OSL, not sure of scenario behind it.

Question - why away from GPL?

Brian - problem is the experience of people working for corp 
contributing, very easy to contaminate other software

Cullen - not linkable to other things

Jorge - not sure what goals are of this effort

Tools as work for hire for IETF

Is the idea to have tools used by companies?
What other uses for these tools?

Henrik
GPL has objective flaws
 if we hire a company to use GPL code and use with own code in-house, 
because GPL wont permit it

Many companies scared for particular use of GPL license code
Want these tools to be useful in context of moving between different 
bidders on a contract

Jorge
concur with assessment
rules out GPL

Uses you care about, by or for the IETF, but anyone could use for free

Henrik - right

Want mods to flow back to the public

H - yes

Mods w/in certain constraints; private use, OK

For resale, concerned about; mods should be contributed back

Jorge -
Free -
Company X wants to redistrute for a charge

Henrik - not an issue; as long as they contribute the code back to IETF; 
they can make money off it, OK

Brian - similar
Don't want contractors to write code, then walk away and not give back

Jeff
NSS develops a tool; owned by Trust

If open sourced, could use for another commercial venture?

Brian - OK, as long as software given back

Jorge,

IETF paying for NSS to develop and then they commercialize

Cullen - probably OK

Russ - as long as benefactor has commitment to software as long we 
benefit from derivitive works as well

Cullen - patents

Jorge - assumption under works for hire, any inventions owned by Trust, 
patents owned by Trust

Cullen, if not works for hire

Henrik - relevant? 
Not in a position to enforce license being put

Cullen,
Not likely to accept 20 different licenses, not workable

Henrik - nothing close to that

Jeff - are you soliciting code, other than works for hire

Henrik- tools work by volunteers with difference licenses and unspecified
No other activities

Brian - encourage everyone to relicense under what selected

Jeff - don't have to select, but could get others to relicense

Cullen - want to encourage others

Jorge - can see why OSL chosen

I have a sense OSL drafted by licensees, not licensors

Derivitive works,

Para 1.b. granted - with definition

  under US copyright includes combinations, compilations, worrisome

  Cullen - rejected by Open Source group; author - Larry Rosen

1.c distribute under OSL license
  Close to GPL
  License not well known
  a little worrisome; a contaminating effect like GPL
  The GPL author has a different view than Jorge

2. Grant of patent license
  Shouldn't be able to sue users for using license
  Grants derivitive works license
    However, not sure what course derivitive works will take; highly 
valuable perhaps
    make people nervous

Henrik - license - original licensor will also license patents; license 
does not say that licensors of derivitavie works will be licensing 
additional patents not covered by original license

Jorge -
Scenario
  NSS has some patents, develops a searching tool; someone takes the 
tool and turns into a global indexing tool; even tho patent covers the 
tools; NSS couldn't asser its patent on the global indexing tool

Henrik - so, when Work For Hire, and licensor is Trust; does not grant 
anyone else's patents

Henrik - opposed to telling someone else what license they have to use 
to contribute

Cullen - HTTPS, does open SSL apply?

Henrik - if company contributes code with a Patent, then a problem for them

Jorge - Work For Hire and incidental patches where patents not an issue; 
may need to rethink if people approach with fully functioning applications

Jorge
para 7 - Warranty the licensor is to make

here, Trust have to make a warranty that rights owned by licensor or 
properly sublicensed

Should not grant this warranty, especially if not being compensated for it

Jeff - my biggest concern as well

Jorge - trust has goal of protecting its assets; a risk not sure 
Trustees should take
license should be As is

henrik - resonates with me also; worries me; leaves us with 3 options
1. Remove this clause, and use the rest of license; drawback
2. Search for another license w/o this flaw, if reasonably well-known
3. don't have any license

Bob - what disadvantge of BSD

Henrik - no protection of people taking code and getting mods back; want 
to take to list; been here in the past where IETF didn't own and painful 
being reliant on code if people pulling the plug; pickup and go 
somewhere else

Jorge
Did look at other licenses; BSD had benefits, but problems
What if we suggested changes to OSL?  3.1?
Rosen a member of IPR WG
Not have to start from scratch

Brian - Larry eager to play; would see it as an endorsement

Henrik - like the idea

Bob - think we have plan

Next Steps
Henrik will initiate contact with Larry
Cullen - encourage a call
Archive of discussion of OSL?

Cullen - will look for a link

Possibility of a follow-up in Chicago

Jeff - has a website rosenlaw.com 707-485-1242
[email-masked]

Cullen - how quickly developed in the past & how soon do you need it?
No responses

IPR WG now scheduled for Monday afternoon

Jorge - day works for him

_______________________________________________
TOOLS-DEVELOPMENT mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-development