Phillip Hallam-Baker <pbaker(_at_)verisign(_dot_)com> wrote:
I would accept GPL 2.0, but not GPL without any qualifier such that the
IETF was required to comply with whatever scheme RMS has thought up this
week to reinsert himself at the center of attention.
I wouldn't have any objections to a policy which establishes
the criterion of GPLv2 compatibility in addition to compatibility with
proprietary closed-source software.
It would IMO be better however to formulate the criterion in a way
which avoids explicitly mentioning GPLv2. Rather, I would suggest
to adopt a policy formulation that tells as explicitly as possible
how to check whether the terms of a patent license or patent
non-assertion promise are acceptable.
Greetings,
Norbert.
--
Norbert Bollow <nb(_at_)bollow(_dot_)ch> http://Norbert.ch
President of the Swiss Internet User Group SIUG http://SIUG.ch
Working on establishing a non-corrupt and
truly /open/ international standards organization http://OpenISO.org
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf