How can we not adopt some manner of "open source" attitude, Paul? That
has been the basic methodology of the IETF for some time. Otherwise, we
would be paying for every DNS lookup.
Scott
On 15 Oct 2004, Paul Vixie wrote:
esr(_at_)thyrsus(_dot_)com ("Eric S. Raymond") writes:
...
The open-source community figured out by about 1997-1998 that there is no
way to discriminate between "commercial" and "noncommercial" activity
that does not create fatal uncertainties about who has what rights at
what times. When you add the problems of mixing software with licenses
having *different versions* of such a distinction the downside gets even
worse.
Thus, the licensing guidelines of both the OSI and FSF forbid attempts at
this.
This only matters if you intend to limit redistribution. The older BSD
licenseware limits only liability, not redistribution, and thus doesn't
care about details like commerce. This could be a lesson for IETF if we
really are going to address IPR issues in the boilerplate by adopting any
kind of "open source" attitude.
--
Paul Vixie
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
sleekfreak pirate broadcast
http://sleekfreak.ath.cx:81/
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf