Ray Pelletier wrote:
Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
Joel M. Halpern wrote:
I do not understand the problem you want addressed. The way this is
worded, it doesn't matter what "open source" or "free software" is or
becomes. The intention is to grant anyone to do anything with the
code segments. That's what we ask the trust to do. Further in line.
I think Simon is suggesting that we provide some guidance to the Trust
in choosing a license. IANAL, however the phrase "grant anyone to do
anything" sounds nice in theory but needs to be translated into a
functioning license. As far as I can see there are three licenses that
would fit the bill:
1. The MIT license
2. A BSD-style license
3. A designation that the code is in the public domain
Some people allege that it is not possible to put a work directly into
the public domain (although I disagree), which is why they prefer to use
As a point of comparison, the XMPP Standards Foundation recently worked
to make sure that its specifications are safe for inclusion in free
sofware, and decided upon a slightly-modified MIT license (modified in
order to make clear that we were publishing specifications, not code).
The resulting license is here:
The Trustees adopted the Non-Profit Open Software License 3.0 in
September 2007 as the license it would use for open sourcing software
done as work-for-hire and that contributed to it, at that time thinking
of code contributed by IETF volunteers. See:
Is it clear that the contributions contemplated by these documents would
require a different treatment?
Thanks for the link. I had not been aware of this license, so I'll take
some time to read it before commenting. I've also sent the text of the
license to the debian-legal list for discussion among that community.
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
IETF mailing list