Re: on GPL specifically [Re: Suggested text for text vs code]

[Simon Josefsson <simon at josefsson.org>]

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

> ...
>> However, I believe it doesn't make sense to decrease the quality of a
>> specification by removing code that is only available under, say, the
>> GPL.  That works against the goals of the IETF of having
>> specifications implemented widely and quickly.  Some code is better
>> than no code in a document.
>
> The specific problem with GPL is that if GPLed code is included
> in a standard, any implementor who cannot accept the risk
> of GPL contamination in his or her code is going to have a heck
> of a time understanding the standard without inadvertently reading
> the GPL code.

If you are required to read code to understand a standard, I'd say the
standard is already too inadequate for further consideration, and
should never be published anyway.  I believe we should assume that
standards continue to have high quality.

Further, it seems you are talking about a patent situation.  There is
no problem in reading and running GPL'd code and trying it out against
your proprietary or BSD licensed code.  It is only if you distribute
the GPLed code in a product that the reciprocal terms of GPL apply.

> It might be necessary to have a colleague outside the clean room
> blank out those sections of the RFC first. I think we should avoid
> that.

Sure, but that is not the case.  That's the situation with patents,
but not with copyrights.

> As already observed, it can be avoided by contributing the code
> to the IETF process directly instead of via a GPLed document.
> Nobody is forced to put their code under GPL before contributing
> it to the IETF.

Sure, and I absolutely agree.  What I'm talking about is when that
situation did not happen and was not feasible.

/Simon

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