While I support the use of open source software whenever possible, it
seems too restrictive to mandate it in the BCP on the IASA operation.
I am not even sure that this level of detail belongs in this doc at
all, though it may belong in a set of recommendations to the IAOC.
a.
On 3 dec 2004, at 16.37, Henrik Levkowetz wrote:
restriction by the contractor. Software should be open source
and
"should be open source" ??
It does leave open that it is not mandatory. But it still sounds as
a very strong statement. If a contractor develops specific software
for us, I'd be OK if we can get it at any time for IETF use, but I am
not sure we should require it to be or become open source should we?
There are two issues here, one practical and one philosophical.
Practically, if we can use it, but don't have the source code, we
cannot take it to someone else and ask them to add new functionality.
Asking someone else to provide an enhanced version of the tool would
mean starting implementation from scratch. But this doesn't mean
that the source needs to be open, it means that the IETF needs to
have ownership of the source.
Philosophically, I would suggest that it might be more in line with
the spirit of the IETF to go for open source, and (a different point)
I would personally find it desirable. Having IETF-developed
software as open source also neatly bypasses any future controversy
about ownership, stewardship and whatnot, which I find appealing.
I'm not sure I see any strong reasons for us not going this route.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf