Subject: [Tools-team] Agenda for 25 May 2005 Telechat

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 18:49:28 +0200

Hi,

Here are the minutes today's meeting.  

---------------------------------------------------------

0. Present: Alex, Henrik, Bill (last half)

1. Agenda bashing

	None

2. Comments on minutes from last teleconference.

	None

3. Action item review.

	Skipped

4. Any other business.

   * IESG discuss of draft submission draft:
     Ted Hardie brings up whether the requirement should be open
     source, or rather that independent implementations by multiple
     teams etc. should be the requirement.  There are more things
     which follow from making the tool open source, and we would like
     the requirement to be open source, rather than something else.

     Additionally, we discussed a possible explicit recommendation
     of one specific open source license; Alex mentioned a BSD or
     MIT style license, while Henrik suggested and would prefer
     CDDL (http://www.opensource.org/licenses/cddl1.php).  Alex will
     look over CDDL and comment on it, and he will also respond to
     Ted's comments.

   * Should we put a link to the Archive tool ( http://tools.ietf.org/id/ )
     on the main tools.ietf.org page?  After some discussion the resolution
     was to not do this until the situation with respect to making
     old drafts available has been clarified.

     Alex also suggested to let a numberless draft url 
    (e.g., http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-mobileip-ipv6) lead
     to a meta-information page, while a url with something like 
     -current or -latest appended would lead to the current version
     of the draft, instead of the way it is done now, with a re-direct
     to the current version when a numberless draft name is given.

5. Action items for next week.

   * Stas: 	Continue working on the Notification Service
		Requirements.

   * Alex:	Respond to Ted Hardie's comments on the draft submission
		document

   * Alex:	Continue filling in missing parts of the ID info draft,
		provided no adverse comments on the direction of the
		recently posted version.

   * Donald:	Continue work on the scheduling tool prototype; next
		step will be a form for data/constraints input to the
		scheduling

6. Next meeting:

  Teleconference Wednesday 8 June, 16:00 GMT (same local time as
  today).

---------------------------------------------------------
Connection details:

To join the call, dial +1-734-615-7474 and enter PIN 0151989.

One can also join the call by dialling:
 sip:[email-masked] 
on a SIP-enabled voice communications client. 

If the SIP client cannot dial URLs, you can have the conference
system call you if you have the sip URL for your phone.  Go to
 https://edial.internet2.edu/call/0151989
and type in the URL to your phone, and follow the directions.

_______________________________________________
Tools-team mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-team

---

From: Larry Masinter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 10:13:40 -0700

Re open source requirement:

I think a "requirements" document should list what the
requirements are for the license agreement -- what is it
that you want permission to do in the future? -- rather than
explicitly require a particular license.

Larry

---

From: "Alex Rousskov" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 11:20:41 -0600

On Wed, 2005/05/25 (MDT), <[email-masked]> wrote:

> requirements are for the license agreement

That's what the current document does. OSI-certified licenses
all satisfy Open Source Definition, which is a set of
specific requirements for software licenses. (We can refer to
OSD instead of OSI certification.)

> rather than explicitly require a particular license.

Why is it a bad idea to require a specific license
for all new code developed for IETF?
(except to avoid the potentially endless discussion
of which license we should pick)

Thank you,

Alex.

---

From: Larry Masinter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 10:48:33 -0700

> of which license we should pick)

Code developed "for" the IETF* should belong "to" the
IETF*, and the IETF* should be allowed to change the
license terms under which it allows others to use it,
at will. If it belongs to the IETF*, the IETF doesn't
need a license to use it, does it? Or a specific,
minimal, no distribution license required kind of
license.

(By 'IETF*', I mean whatever legal administrative
framework there is that can own software).

Other code (operating systems, frameworks, toolkits,
etc.) will belong to whomever they belong to, and
unless the IETF* is going to develop from metal and
silicon up, much of it is unlikely to be available
with one particular license (drivers? operating system?
application framework?).

Larry

---

From: "Alex Rousskov" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 15:06:39 -0600

> minimal, no distribution license required kind of

Not all code developed for IETF will belong to IETF.
If IETF owns the code, the license is a non-issue in
this context, of course!

> framework there is that can own software).

If there is any.

> with one particular license (drivers? operating system?

The _new_ code not owned by IETF has to be licensed.

The issue of license compatiblity is also addressed
by the draft, but we are not talking about that now.

For example, to develop a Toolset, one would use
10 open source libraries licensed under 3 licenses.
One would also write or add "new" code. If, for whatever
reason, that "new" code is not assigned to IETF, then
it needs a license for IETF to use and maintain.
That license is the context of this discussion.

Note that the "new" code may be something that
did exist before, but was not available to IETF
(what some would call proprietary code). We currently
require that such code would be licensed using
an open source license. If we do not require that,
I think we will end up with the current situation
where IETF is not sure whether it has the rights
to access all of "its" tools and metadata.

Alex.