Add Apache 2.0 LICENSE

[glpatcern]

No description provided.

[MahdiBaghbani]

Specifications need license? Didn't know that!

Doesn't it technically belong to IETF now?

[mickenordin]

What is the purpose of this? We already have the copyright sorted out, including a specific grant for copying the spec?

[glpatcern]

It was asked by a CERN IP scrutiny as part of preparing for the EOSC4ALL project. I'm not convinced we need it, I've put it forward for discussion/evaluation.

[mickenordin]

It was asked by a CERN IP scrutiny as part of preparing for the EOSC4ALL project. I'm not convinced we need it, I've put it forward for discussion/evaluation.

What was the concern they put forward? CERN of course has a right to implement the specification by the standard IETF provisions and we have even granted further grants for software examples. So my take is that this will not improve the ability of anyone to implement or use the standard in anyway, but rather make it harder, to live up to more requirements. So I think we shouldn't do it, unless there are some clear benefits to the community.

If you want to proceed further with this, first read up on the IETF IP rules: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5378.html and if you are not content with the status que, contact the IETF trust and ask them about this.

[MahdiBaghbani]

My read is that we're not blocked. RFC 5378 section 3.6 says contributors, or their
employers, keep the copyright in Internet-Drafts, and the Trust only takes ownership
once something is published as an RFC. Section 5.10 then spells out that authors keep
the right to exploit their own contributions "in any way they wish". So the drafts are
still ours to license.

@mickenordin I think you're right that the drafts don't need it though. IETF-OCM.xml
carries ipr="trust200902", so all three drafts are under BCP 78 and the TLP already,
code components pulled out of them are automatically Revised BSD (TLP 4.c), and on top
of that we added our own grant in Copying conditions that even allows modification. I
couldn't find anything missing there.

What I didn't expect is everything else in the repo: spec.yaml,
schemas/ocm-discovery.json, diagrams/, docs.html, logo/. None of them carry a
license or a copyright line as far as I can see.

The Copying conditions grant lives inside the draft and covers the draft. The TLP
covers IETF Documents. spec.yaml isn't either one, it's just a file in a GitHub repo,
so it falls back to plain default copyright, which means all rights reserved. And
spec.yaml is the file people actually feed to a generator to build a client. Same for
the schema.

So my guess is that's what CERN found, and if so I think it's a fair catch rather than
paperwork.

On the PR itself, could you please add a copyright line? Right now it's Apache 2.0
sections 1 to 9 with the APPENDIX cut off, so there's no "Copyright "
anywhere, and Apache defines "Licensor" as the copyright owner granting the license. As
it stands I think the file grants rights on behalf of nobody, which would be a bit
funny to send back to an IP review.

My preference would be to scope it rather than drop it: have LICENSE say the
Internet-Drafts are governed by BCP 78 and the TLP, put the spec files and diagrams
under Apache 2.0, leave the logo out of it since Apache section 6 grants no trademark
rights anyway and add that copyright line.

One thing in favor of Apache specifically that I haven't seen come up: section 3 is an
express patent grant. Our Copying conditions grant doesn't have one, and neither does
the Revised BSD the TLP gives for code components. BCP 79 gets us disclosure, which
isn't quite the same thing. If someone's lawyer asks about patents before they
implement, I think that's the part that answers them. Without that, we could just as
well use Revised BSD and match the TLP.

I'm not a lawyer though 😄

[lisad]

I am also not a lawyer, but I should think that applying a license to the Github repo is going to be easier than trying to add it to the spec, and that may help an org feel safer, especially with examples or test code that are alongside the spec. Lisa

…

On Tue, Jul 28, 2026 at 6:50 AM Mahdi Baghbani ***@***.***> wrote: *MahdiBaghbani* left a comment (cs3org/OCM-API#393) <#393 (comment)> My read is that we're not blocked. RFC 5378 section 3.6 says contributors, or their employers, keep the copyright in Internet-Drafts, and the Trust only takes ownership once something is published as an RFC. Section 5.10 then spells out that authors keep the right to exploit their own contributions "in any way they wish". So the drafts are still ours to license. @mickenordin <https://github.com/mickenordin> I think you're right that the drafts don't need it though. IETF-OCM.xml carries ipr="trust200902", so all three drafts are under BCP 78 and the TLP already, code components pulled out of them are automatically Revised BSD (TLP 4.c), and on top of that we added our own grant in Copying conditions that even allows modification. I couldn't find anything missing there. What I didn't expect is everything else in the repo: spec.yaml, schemas/ocm-discovery.json, diagrams/, docs.html, logo/. None of them carry a license or a copyright line as far as I can see. The Copying conditions grant lives inside the draft and covers the draft. The TLP covers IETF Documents. spec.yaml isn't either one, it's just a file in a GitHub repo, so it falls back to plain default copyright, which means all rights reserved. And spec.yaml is the file people actually feed to a generator to build a client. Same for the schema. So my guess is that's what CERN found, and if so I think it's a fair catch rather than paperwork. On the PR itself, could you please add a copyright line? Right now it's Apache 2.0 sections 1 to 9 with the APPENDIX cut off, so there's no "Copyright " anywhere, and Apache defines "Licensor" as the copyright owner granting the license. As it stands I think the file grants rights on behalf of nobody, which would be a bit funny to send back to an IP review. My preference would be to scope it rather than drop it: have LICENSE say the Internet-Drafts are governed by BCP 78 and the TLP, put the spec files and diagrams under Apache 2.0, leave the logo out of it since Apache section 6 grants no trademark rights anyway and add that copyright line. One thing in favor of Apache specifically that I haven't seen come up: section 3 is an express patent grant. Our Copying conditions grant doesn't have one, and neither does the Revised BSD the TLP gives for code components. BCP 79 gets us disclosure, which isn't quite the same thing. If someone's lawyer asks about patents before they implement, I think that's the part that answers them. Without that, we could just as well use Revised BSD and match the TLP. I'm not a lawyer though 😄 — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#393?email_source=notifications&email_token=AADWH4PKJOKD4L4Q7QLPKCL5HCVTPA5CNFSNUABFM5UWIORPF5TWS5BNNB2WEL2JONZXKZKDN5WW2ZLOOQXTKMJQGUYDANZVGE32M4TFMFZW63VKON2WE43DOJUWEZLEUVSXMZLOOSWGM33PORSXEX3DNRUWG2Y#issuecomment-5105007517>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AADWH4MYJ5PCSLFCCBPTOPT5HCVTPAVCNFSNUABEKJSXA33TNF2G64TZHM3DQOBQGU2TSNR3JFZXG5LFHM2DSOJXGY2TMNJXG6QXMAQ> . You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.Message ID: ***@***.***>