From Oliver Morgan 2021-12-13
Bruce:
I applaud the PCD process and look forward to using it.
However, I am concerned that an unintended effect of PCDs could be to create a legacy of partial implementations and work product (bit streams and other) of such, and this will inevitably lead to the opposite of the intended benefits of PCD.
The possibility of such legacy emerging is particularly likely when the PCD includes source code, and when the PCD does not yet include sample files, regression tests and conformance tests.
I recommend that the LICENSE file that is part of PCDs is expanded to include specific statements of rights that are and are not granted, not only for the text of the PCD but also for derivate works in source or binary form and the bitstreams resulting from derivative works.
This is necessary because so many open source projects on github and elsewhere have a much more permissive license (such as the MIT, Apache or GPL licenses), and SMPTE must not risk creating the expectation of such permissions for PCDs.
Here is an example of possible wording:
"SMPTE grants a license to create derivate works of this specification in source code or binary form for the sole purpose of evaluating the specification prior to its submission to a SMPTE ballot to establish technical consensus.
SMPTE does NOT grant a license to create derivate works nor to distribute them in any form nor to distribute the resulting bitstreams to any recipient who is not a member of the sponsoring SMPTE Technology committee"
The license granted for an FCD or DP will be of course quite different, and in many cases existing SMPTE policies will be fine. However, in cases where a SMPTE document embodies source code, I recommend that the license includes appropriate clauses to safeguard the interoperability that SMPTE desires. An example of such a license is the AAF Public Source License (AAF PSL) which has been part of all distributions of AAF.
I look forward to your comments on this subject
thanks and best regards
Oliver
From Oliver Morgan 2021-12-13
Bruce:
I applaud the PCD process and look forward to using it.
However, I am concerned that an unintended effect of PCDs could be to create a legacy of partial implementations and work product (bit streams and other) of such, and this will inevitably lead to the opposite of the intended benefits of PCD.
The possibility of such legacy emerging is particularly likely when the PCD includes source code, and when the PCD does not yet include sample files, regression tests and conformance tests.
I recommend that the LICENSE file that is part of PCDs is expanded to include specific statements of rights that are and are not granted, not only for the text of the PCD but also for derivate works in source or binary form and the bitstreams resulting from derivative works.
This is necessary because so many open source projects on github and elsewhere have a much more permissive license (such as the MIT, Apache or GPL licenses), and SMPTE must not risk creating the expectation of such permissions for PCDs.
Here is an example of possible wording:
"SMPTE grants a license to create derivate works of this specification in source code or binary form for the sole purpose of evaluating the specification prior to its submission to a SMPTE ballot to establish technical consensus.
SMPTE does NOT grant a license to create derivate works nor to distribute them in any form nor to distribute the resulting bitstreams to any recipient who is not a member of the sponsoring SMPTE Technology committee"
The license granted for an FCD or DP will be of course quite different, and in many cases existing SMPTE policies will be fine. However, in cases where a SMPTE document embodies source code, I recommend that the license includes appropriate clauses to safeguard the interoperability that SMPTE desires. An example of such a license is the AAF Public Source License (AAF PSL) which has been part of all distributions of AAF.
I look forward to your comments on this subject
thanks and best regards
Oliver