[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [Internet-Drafts@ietf.org: I-D ACTION:draft-bradner-rfc-extracts-00.txt]

Simon Josefsson <jas@extundo.com> wrote:
> Please explain to them why their behavior frustrate the Debian
> community.  (But stop your blood from boiling first...)

If you have the time, please go and do it. IETF have been broken
awhile and I do not believe they are ignorant that:-

* it is not necessary to give permission for "unrestricted
derivative works" to be includeable(?) in free software;

* confusion over what is the standard can obviously be avoided
by use of signatures and/or by naming requirements;


* the "unrestricted" argument is attributed to unspecified
messages from unnamed persons on a mailing list;

* Debian Developer Sam Hartman is referenced, who was involved
with the need for modification permission on RFCs before, so I
expect the DFSG have been explained;

* non-IETF changes are described as "capricious";

* majority rule is appealed to;

* Larry Rosen is mentioned;

* Scott Bradner has written in Network Week in favour of the
scrutiny that "open source" gets, but derided modifiability;

* Scott Bradner appears to hold a software patent;

* it fits with my experience of recent IETF actions.

> Don't attribute to malice, what can be explained by ignorance, and all
> that.

As explained above, I wouldn't be sincere if I tried to participate
on that basis right now. I think that some IETF participants would be
quite happy to harm debian.

> Some highly involved people in the IETF IPR WG have claimed they were
> not aware of the problems the IETF legal conditions create for the
> free software community.  Since RFC have not been included in Debian
> for a long time (forever?), I had assumed that this had been discussed
> with the IETF earlier.  Given the ignorance, that may not have been
> the case.  (More information on that would be useful, btw.)

http://bugs.debian.org/92810 has some background, including the
maintainer refusing to contact upstream about it.

> If we explain the problem to the IPR WG, and they pursue similar poor
> conditions, it will become clear that the IETF do not care about the
> free software community.  Then we can formalize our own
> standardization mechanism, without feeling a moral commitment to
> sharing the work with the IETF.

Yes, that's one way out of this hole, but it's not without a lot of
work and a lot of risk. :-(


Reply to: