On Wednesday 24 October 2007 14:01, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
GPL would not be a criterion I would consider reasonable. And in particular
I would not accept the idea that the IETF or any other body be committed to
whatever notions insert themselves into RMS in the future. I have actually
met RMS.
What I would like to do here is to arrive at a set of terms that is
considered to be sufficiently RANDZ to be sufficiently compatible with the
consensus amongst open source developers. At the moment I do not see a
consensus in favor of GPL 3.0.
Having seen a WG crash and burn after theological discussions over open
source license compatibility I would like to see an IETF level consensus
that terms X are sufficiently open for most purposes. If someone had a
reason to beleive that these were not sufficient in a specific working
group for specific reasons these could then be argued in the WG if there
was a WG consensus that this was necessary.
I'd say it entirely depends. I can understand not wanting to hitch your wagon
to any particular individual's view of the future of licensing. OTOH, where
GPL software represents a significant fragment of the internet landscape, you
have to (I think) accept GPL compatible licensing terms or give up on
interoperability. BTW, I think Yahoo!'s revised DomainKeys license solves
this is a useful way that may have more general utility.
Scott K
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf