At 11:04 AM +0200 10/25/07, Simon Josefsson wrote:
Ted Hardie <hardie(_at_)qualcomm(_dot_)com> writes:
No. My point was that for the IETF, interoperability is the goal, not some
general statement about goodness of Free software. In many/most/maybe all
cases, this will require any IPR restrictions to be GPL compatible.
Can you think of an open-source project interested in the work of
CCAMP?
GNU Zebra, Quagga, and MPLS-linux are three projects that come up by
searching for relevant technology.
I'm actually fairly familiar with Quagga, having used it in route-server
mode, and it's mind understanding that it and Zebra don't really
match the control plane uses of CCAMP. I'm not familiar with
MPLS-linux, but I'll take a look at it; thanks for the pointer.
I think you are missing the point, though. The point is to make sure
that a free software implementation of IETF technology is _possible_.
That doesn't necessarily mean that you won't be able to find an IETF WG
with technical work that may not have been implemented already in free
software.
The point I'm making, though, is that there really are different development
communities working in the IETF. The GMPLS work in CCAMP is control
plane work for wavelength, TDMA, and spatial switching networks. Though
clearly
important to keeping many networks running, it doesn't have the same
reach of development interest as many of the other technologies in the
IETF. If you were to compare it to the development communities involved
in apps groups like CALSIFY or LEMONADE, you would find a very small
overlap. Those development communities may well have different priorities
in evaluating a license; some may find it problematic to include something
that is royalty bearing or requires a reciprocal agreement and some may not.
Privileging a development community which might someday arise and
whose work might someday get deployment over the folks actually already
spending time and effort on developing and deploying a standard
is an odd position. Our aim is to make the Internet work, not to advance
one kind of license over another. If the Internet will work better using a
technology
that requires a license incompatible with the GPL or even BSD licenses, then
we should let the folks working in that area make that decision.
In other words, this is about engineering trade-offs, not ideology.
regards,
Ted
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf