+1. I couldn't express it better.
On 2008-03-29 04:54, Ted Hardie wrote:
At 8:16 AM -0700 3/28/08, Simon Josefsson wrote:
"Joel M. Halpern" <jmh(_at_)joelhalpern(_dot_)com> writes:
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.
The problem is that without proper guidelines on how to make a software
license compatible with free software licenses, it is possible to end up
with something that won't be compatible, and thus wouldn't meet the
Given that the IETF Trust doesn't publish drafts or have a history of
asking for community review on the legal license they chose, I believe
it is important that the IETF articulate its wishes in ways that reduce
chances of misunderstandings or are open for interpretation.
I disagree with Simon's addition. The intent of the document is to
give the Trust instructions from the community that we want
the code in RFCs to be available to anyone to do anything.
As Joel put it:
"The intention is to grant anyone to do anything with the code
segments. That's what we ask the trust to do. "
That was the consensus of the working group, and I believe it
should remain the consensus of the IETF as a whole--it gives
the widest possible reach to the standard. Crafting the legal
language to make that work is a task best left to lawyers;
adding specific compatibility requirements that appear
to privilege one set of follow-on outputs is both confusing and ultimately
pointless. The language in the draft is clear that we want
the code to be usable by *anyone*. It wouldn't add anything
to that mandate to list specific individuals, and it doesn't
add anything to list specific licenses that will only apply
after an individual has already used the code.
IETF mailing list
IETF mailing list