Re: A priori IPR choices

[Scott Kitterman <scott at kitterman.com>]

On Wednesday 24 October 2007 14:01, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
> GPL would not be a criterion I would consider reasonable. And in particular
> I would not accept the idea that the IETF or any other body be committed to
> whatever notions insert themselves into RMS in the future. I have actually
> met RMS.
>
> What I would like to do here is to arrive at a set of terms that is
> considered to be sufficiently RANDZ to be sufficiently compatible with the
> consensus amongst open source developers. At the moment I do not see a
> consensus in favor of GPL 3.0.
>
> Having seen a WG crash and burn after theological discussions over open
> source license compatibility I would like to see an IETF level consensus
> that terms X are sufficiently open for most purposes. If someone had a
> reason to beleive that these were not sufficient in a specific working
> group for specific reasons these could then be argued in the WG if there
> was a WG consensus that this was necessary.

I'd say it entirely depends.  I can understand not wanting to hitch your wagon 
to any particular individual's view of the future of licensing.  OTOH, where 
GPL software represents a significant fragment of the internet landscape, you 
have to (I think) accept GPL compatible licensing terms or give up on 
interoperability.  BTW, I think Yahoo!'s revised DomainKeys license solves 
this is a useful way that may have more general utility.

Scott K

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf



com;
	s=2007-00; t=1193252715; bh=ELJbNNwZ87GTMGjiLYs6RdcK6Xe4ULriXLFIBbR
	S/f4=; h=Received:From:Organization:To:Subject:Date:User-Agent:
	References:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:
	Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Disposition:Message-Id:
	X-AV-Checked; b=FmdAwTJMeHaK5y1YA/pKeFqvs3rsMdySEC8eofyQ//zVA4pOJ1
	iNFFH4r3iKNkRB6Qc/JhaFwhjVVCLX7Z2cwctJV6eazs57h6xGo4k/Kdedk52Bdwq8y
	Mg6eViCRz7KQoLzNLkPyGfG8ha8Fi+NEoa/Pb2u0KvZ4sLW2C5mO0Q=
Received: from [192.168.111.102] (static-72-81-252-22.bltmmd.fios.verizon.net
	[72.81.252.22])
	by mailout00.controlledmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A0475CC08D
	for <ietf at ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Oct 2007 19:05:15 +0000 (UTC)
From: Scott Kitterman <scott at kitterman.com>
Organization: Kitterman Technical Services
To: ietf at ietf.org
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 15:05:12 -0400
User-Agent: KMail/1.9.5
References: <E1IaIjf-0008OK-Bi at megatron.ietf.org>
	<200710241133.41148.scott at kitterman.com>
	<2788466ED3E31C418E9ACC5C31661557084F05 at mou1wnexmb09.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>
In-Reply-To: <2788466ED3E31C418E9ACC5C31661557084F05 at mou1wnexmb09.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200710241505.13295.scott at kitterman.com>
X-AV-Checked: ClamAV using ClamSMTP
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: ffa9dfbbe7cc58b3fa6b8ae3e57b0aa3
Subject: Re: A priori IPR choices
X-BeenThere: ietf at ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>,
	<mailto:ietf-request at ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf at ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request at ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>,
	<mailto:ietf-request at ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: ietf-bounces at ietf.org

On Wednesday 24 October 2007 14:01, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
> GPL would not be a criterion I would consider reasonable. And in particular
> I would not accept the idea that the IETF or any other body be committed to
> whatever notions insert themselves into RMS in the future. I have actually
> met RMS.
>
> What I would like to do here is to arrive at a set of terms that is
> considered to be sufficiently RANDZ to be sufficiently compatible with the
> consensus amongst open source developers. At the moment I do not see a
> consensus in favor of GPL 3.0.
>
> Having seen a WG crash and burn after theological discussions over open
> source license compatibility I would like to see an IETF level consensus
> that terms X are sufficiently open for most purposes. If someone had a
> reason to beleive that these were not sufficient in a specific working
> group for specific reasons these could then be argued in the WG if there
> was a WG consensus that this was necessary.

I'd say it entirely depends.  I can understand not wanting to hitch your wagon 
to any particular individual's view of the future of licensing.  OTOH, where 
GPL software represents a significant fragment of the internet landscape, you 
have to (I think) accept GPL compatible licensing terms or give up on 
interoperability.  BTW, I think Yahoo!'s revised DomainKeys license solves 
this is a useful way that may have more general utility.

Scott K

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf