At 6:23 PM -0500 1/26/05, Sam Hartman wrote:
I brought up the issue of sublicensing. Perhaps I missed discussion
in the flood of messages. Assuming I didn't, let me try and prod people?
Do people believe the issue of sublicensing is not worth discussing or
are we all just unsure what to say about it?
My take is that if we develop it, we can set up the licensing to be
free and sublicensable. No need to put that in the BCP.
If we are using a service developed by a provider also serving others, the
provider may well want to license certain software to us without granting
us to sublicense it to others, as that's their business. Trying to
say we insist
all software licensed to us be sublicensable by us seems to have the back
door effect of eliminating some providers. I don't think that's the
right thing
to do, and I don't think we should put in the BCP. It would certainly be
something an IAD/IAOC could look at, but as part of constellation of
factors.
Again, though, this doesn't limit us from saying what states the IP
we develop ends up in.
regards,
Ted
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf