I think more important is that the cited intent when this thread was
warming up was that we were asking the Trust to NOT IMPOSE any
restrictions on code examples WHICH WEREN'T already present from
the contributor of the example. ANY license imposed by the Trust
would likley conflict with that intent.
On Sun, 30 Mar 2008, Ted Hardie wrote:
At 12:11 PM -0700 3/30/08, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
I am still left with the impression that adding references to specific
licenses to the draft is going to be confusing, not helpful.
If we started saying "needs to be compatible with license X, Y, and Z"
then we have at least two problems. We would have to confirm that X, Y,
and Z all met our goals. And we would have to figure out why we should
point to X, Y, and Z but not Q, W, or any other licenses that may be
suitable as models.
I have no problem with any individual suggesting to the Trustees that
specific existing models may be a good way to achieve the stated goal.
But adding references to example licenses, even if we were sure they
matched our goals, will not help anyone understand the agreed goals.
The existing statement is quite clear English.
Yours,
Joel M. Halpern
I agree with Joel. We're trying to give instructions to the Trust that
cover the broadest possible user base; calling out specific licenses
or user bases either appears to privilege them or adds no value at
all. Suggesting to the Trustees that they consider specific licenses
or, even better, pointing their lawyers at the potholes others have
hit would be very useful. But this draft is not the place to do it.
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf