I would think that any license for RFC code should meet two
1) It should be usable by anyone in the open source community
with any open source/free software license).
2) It should be usable by anyone in any corporation who sells a closed
That way, we can ensure interoperability between open source and closed
implementations. Note that these requirements greatly constrain the
form that the
license should take.
[mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of
Sent: Friday, March 28, 2008 2:30 PM
To: Ray Pelletier
Cc: Simon Josefsson; Joel M. Halpern; ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: IETF Last Call for two IPR WG Dcouments
Ray Pelletier wrote:
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: http://
Is it clear that the contributions contemplated by these documents
would require a different treatment?
Disclaimer: IANAL, and I apologize if I am misunderstanding
something about the license you referenced, but...
It seems to me that the "Non-Profit Open Software License 3.0", while
fine for the source code to IETF tools, places more restrictions and
more burden on someone who uses the code than we would want to place
on someone who uses a MIB, XML schema or other "code" from our RFCs.
For example, the license places an obligation on someone using the
source code to distribute copies of the original source code with any
products they distribute. Effectively, this means that anyone who
distributes products based on MIBs, XML schemas or other "code" from
RFCs would need to put up a partial RFC repository. Why would we
IETF mailing list
IETF mailing list