Re: Section 6.5: Additional Licenses for IETF Contributions

[Simon Josefsson <simon at josefsson.org>]

"Joel M. Halpern" <joel at stevecrocker.com> writes:

> b) With regard to code that is licensed under different rules with
> some restrictions not in the IETF rules, that code can not be included
> as sample code in the IETF documents.  I was told that the rough
> consensus was against allowing more restrictive licenses to be
> included in the documents.  So, for example, any code that requires
> that changes be returned to the origin can not be included as code in
> an IETF document according to these rules.

That would make it impossible to include example code licensed under,
e.g., the BSD, MIT or similar licenses, in IETF document.  Doing that
has been done with good results in several RFCs.  It can be argued that
including example code, under various licenses (including less
permissive than this, which there are many examples of in past RFCs),
furthers the goal of the IETF, and therefor should be permitted.  The
argument against appear to be variations on the following theme:

> Would it be nice to be able to use such code?  Sure.  But having
> multiple different sets of rules, and license terms in documents, and
> efforts to decide ~are we willing to include this code with this
> license?~ was not what the group decided.

This situation would be the same as for patents.

/Simon

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