Subject: [netmod] please see draft-lear-opsawg-ol on licensing

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 May 2021 12:04:06 +0200

[CC netmod]

Hi everyone,

Based on Carsten's concerns about licensing of MUD files we wrote a very 
short extension to RFC 8520 to allow statements to be added.  I note it 
misses an Updates: header, but we should probably add that so people 
know they SHOULD use this extension.

The extension is written as a grouping that is then 'used' to augment a 
'mud' container.  The intent here is that if you find the need to use 
the extension for other purposes, you can.  I wonder if some yang 
doctors would like to take a look. We'd like to move on this one quickly.

Eliot

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 May 2021 19:51:34 -0400

Some WG please adopt.
Probably that's opsawg, iotops or maybe netmod, if netmod thinks this could
be generalized easily.

Eliot Lear <[email-masked]> wrote:
    el> The extension is written as a grouping that is then 'used' to augment
    el> a 'mud' container.  The intent here is that if you find the need to
    el> use the extension for other purposes, you can.  I wonder if some yang
    el> doctors would like to take a look. We'd like to move on this one
    el> quickly.

It looks fine.

On the issue of multiple owners, each would have their own tag, I think that
should be supported.  So, instead of:

       "ol": {
         "owners": [
           "Copyright (c) FrobMaster 2021. All Rights Reserved"
         ],
         "spdx-tag": "0BSD"
       },

I think we need:

       "ol": [
         {
           "owner": "Copyright (c) FrobMaster 2021. All Rights Reserved"
           "spdx-tag": "0BSD"
         }
         ]
       },

> *Issue*: Should this be an owner or an originator?

If by "owner" you mean the of the device, then perhaps you mean manufacturer
or owner?   Or the initial creator of the MUD file, and then I think that
maybe "originator" might be clearer.

>   *  *Issue*: Should we simply say that a URI contains a colon and SPDX
>      license identifier doesn't?

No, I think that I'm happy with different tags.

>   *  *Issue*: Should a single owner possibly have multiple license
>      types?  (Logical or, multi-licensing.)

Uhm, so the Perl ARTISTIC license, which I think is a single license,
is a superposition of two licenses, but it can be represented as a single
license.  So, no.

>   *  *Issue*: Should we give an example for usage outside yang?

if such a situation should present itself in the next 10 weeks, sure.

>   *  *Issue*: Should we maybe point out any specific seccons of 8520?

The only issue I can see is that claiming a copyright might reveal that such
an entity has dealt with such a device.

--
Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide

---

From: Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 May 2021 02:05:46 +0200

> is a superposition of two licenses, but it can be represented as a single

While the Perl artistic license was a goof with a particularly high visibility, there are lots of other situations that call for multi-licensing.
So I’m not sure that Perl is even an good example here.

Grüße, Carsten