Re: Outgoing section 5.5 and draft-josefsson (Re: San Diego meeting slot)

["Joel M. Halpern" <joel at stevecrocker.com>]

But, even the GPL license conflicts with the policy that I understood 
to be the rough consensus of the working group.


Personally, if we start allowing other, more stringent conditions on 
code in RFCs then I conclude that we have wasted the entire exercise 
to date.  Either we have to debate a whole list of conditions, and 
decide which ones are acceptable.  Or we have to declare that every 
working group has to make that decision for itself.  In which case we 
have not accomplished a darned thing, and likely have set up a 
situation in which many rFCs will have code that is not useable for 
many purposes.

Yours,
Joel M. Halpern

PS: If it were useful, I can believe we could find a way to add 
notices which explicitly matched our conditions, but required notice 
preservation.  It is not clear to me that such is useful.  It is 
clear to me that such is not what Simon is asking for.,

At 05:07 AM 10/6/2006, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> "Steven M. Bellovin" <smb at cs.columbia.edu> writes:
>
> > On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 09:20:02 -0400, "Joel M. Halpern"
> > <joel at stevecrocker.com> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> I would be very uncomfortable if every author could slap any
> >> restrictions they want on the code in RFCs.
> >> That would seem to distinctly fail the agreed goal.
> >>
> > It would also drive the IESG crazy, since it would have to evaluate each
> > and every variant license presented to it.  That's the sort of thing that
> > gets lots of documents bogged down.
>
> The only reason the IESG do this appear to be because the policy imply
> that they need to do it.  If we change the policy and permit code
> licensed under non-IETF licenses to be published, the IESG wouldn't
> have to do that work.  I assume that would make the IESG happier, and
> allow them to spend more time on technical matters instead.
>
> There are corner-cases, though, for licenses that even conflict with
> the IETF copying conditions, which may argue for establishing a set of
> known-good licenses, e.g. the revised BSD or the GPL licenses that
> both appear to me be compatible with the IETF copying conditions if we
> permit additional copyright notices, and strongly encourage authors to
> pick one of the recommended licenses.
>
> I see no reason why IETF documents shouldn't be able to include code
> licensed under the BSD/GPL or other similar licenses.  It would
> improve many RFCs.
>
> /Simon


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