From: Keith Moore [mailto:moore(_at_)cs(_dot_)utk(_dot_)edu]
However that doesn't mean that IETF should necessarily
endorse, or even
document, any of these technologies. Sometimes it's a disservice to
the community to document a bad idea.
The protaganists in this matter have already conceeded the technical
issue. It was only when an issue was found with the IPR license on offer
that an objection arose.
I do not think that it is sensible for the IETF to lend credibility to
the idea of a GPL bit that ensures that the bits on the wire are only
processed be software that is in strict compliance with a particular
interpretation of the GPL.
Open software is a good idea, it is a good idea to require that
standards be implimentable using open technologies. It is not a good
idea to allow standards to be used to attempt to prohibit use of
technology because the licensing terms do not meet criteria which the
IETF is unwilling to define or to enforce as a universal standard.
I think it would be a good idea for the IETF to either pick an IPR
standard or to require WGs to specify what their IPR standard will be
when they begin a WG. I would be quite happy for the IETF to adopt the
same IPR policy as W3C and require all standards to meet that standard
of being open and unencumbered.
What is not a good idea is to attempt to achieve consensus on this issue
after the WG charter has been agreed.
I note that the W3C policy is distributed under a creative commons
license. I suggest that future WGs adopt it as is when they make their
charter proposals. Otherwise they are likely to find themselves in the
same position that MARID did.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf