Re: Another IPR model.

[Simon Josefsson <jas at extundo.com>]

Brian E Carpenter <brc at zurich.ibm.com> writes:

> Sam Hartman wrote:
>>>>>>>"Bill" == Bill Sommerfeld <sommerfeld at sun.com> writes:
>>     Bill> indeed.  another way of phrasing it would be:
>>     Bill>  1) when modified derivative specs are
>>     Bill> created/redistributed, the relevant IETF WG (or its
>>     Bill> descendant) must get a copy.
>>     Bill>  2) any or all of a derivative spec must be fair game for
>>     Bill> inclusion in a future IETF spec.  --
>> Note that this would be an unacceptable condition for source code
>> extracted from RFCs.  It's GPL incompatible.
>
> GPL is not the only license and nobody is forced to put their
> code under the GPL. But if someone does extract code from
> an RFC and purports to put it under the GPL, surely we can craft
> a grant of license for RFCs that invalidates this (i.e. says
> "you can include this code but whatever license you purport
> to put it under, the IETF license applies").

I don't understand that.  Are you saying that the IETF should use
copying conditions license that are explicitly GPL incompatible?

If so, I think a lot of open source projects will have to be reviewed
and all inclusions of RFC excerpts have to be removed.  To illustrate
the magnitude and impact of that, we could develop a text recognition
tool that compare RFCs with open source code.  I manually conducted
that search as input to one of the example in my presentation, and
several well known open source products were affected (Apache,
OpenSSL, ...).

Thanks,
Simon

_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wg at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg