Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com> writes:
On 2007-12-02 06:27, Frank Ellermann wrote:Harald Alvestrand wrote:
Sounds familiar...I think the WG has concluded that it's unacceptable to publish source code in an RFC that, if copied from the RFC and modified by a reader, would place a GPL (or any other copyright-based) requirement on that reader.
And I think that's a sensible conclusion to come to....but the outcome is horrible,It doesn't have to be. If the author of the code contributes it directly to the IETF process, quite independently of any contribution of the same code made under any other license, the IETF's needs are met. The outcome is horrible if someone who is not the original author lifts code from (e.g.) a GPL source and embeds it in an IETF document.
I don't understand the focus on GPL here, any license that restricts the
recipient from doing certain things would have the same issue.
I agree. GPL is an example.
The current IETF license is an example of such a license (fixed by incoming+outgoing though). There has been source code examples in RFCs with nasty licenses; if I recall correctly, some does not even permit redistribution.
Further, I think the point is that it happens often that the copyright holder on some code haven't released code under IETF's licenses, and it is useful to include the code in an RFC. The current situation works against the IETF's goal of facilitating wide implementations of standards. This situation is bad, and your suggested solution isn't realistic.
Why not? We've just done it (twice) for a draft I reviewed. It would only fail in the case of an uncooperative author, and in that case we're stuck anyway.
Brian
_______________________________________________ Ipr-wg mailing list Ipr-wg at ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg