This thread is finally getting interesting.
On the other hand, if Olafur is in fact making a living doing BIND9
development and coding for ISC or one of their clients, that might be
called a "conflict of interest" when the issue at hand is that a specific
document is "too BIND9 specific".
What if (as in this case) it was in the past, and Olafur had no current
or prospective income riding on BIND9, but he did once work for a company
who did some subcontract work related to BIND9? Would he still be tainted?
What if (as in this case) BIND9 is always released with a BSD-style license,
allowing unlimited derivative works without fee and no source code requirement
so long as the copyright holder (ISC) is held harmless and given credit?
Would someone who had derived, or might some day derive, income from such
an "open source" work be tainted as much as someone whose equity or patent
holdings stood to gain from their work or from a certain standards decision?
(I'm thinking of the IBM printing thing a few years ago.)
--
Paul Vixie