"Joel M. Halpern" <jmh(_at_)joelhalpern(_dot_)com> writes:
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.
No, that is a misunderstanding. The IPR documents says that anyone
should be able to use the code. If the license on code doesn't meet the
requirements in OSD, FSD or DFSG, it fails to comply with that goal.
Please read my original proposed wording again:
To make sure the granted rights are usable in practice, they need to
at least meet the requirements of the Open Source Definition [OSD],
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
If the software license used fails to meet those requirements, it will
fail to meet others too, and fail to meet the intended goal.
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 don't see that. Note that the references I mentioned aren't licenses
in the first place. Secondly, I don't see anything exclusive about
listing these. We can list others as well, if you want.
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.
Please read what I proposed, those references aren't licenses.
/Simon
Yours,
Joel M. Halpern
Simon Josefsson wrote:
Paul Hoffman <paul(_dot_)hoffman(_at_)vpnc(_dot_)org> writes:
At 7:30 PM +0200 3/30/08, Simon Josefsson wrote:
Paul Hoffman <paul(_dot_)hoffman(_at_)vpnc(_dot_)org> writes:
> These are interesting points, but maybe not interesting in the way
you intended. If some large group (in this example, the Debian folks)
want to have some restriction on what they can use in their software,
that's fine. But that doesn't mean that the IETF needs to do anything
beyond what it wants to do in order to cater to that group's current
desires. Every such group could act just like the IETF does: look
around at what the problems it is facing and change the way it acts
based on an analysis of the problems.
We disagree here. I believe the IETF has a responsibility to chose a
license that works well for a large majority of Internet users. To some
extents, the IETF needs to cater for organizations that make up parts of
the Internet.
So, then we clearly agree. Where we seem to disagree is whether it is
possible to demand that the IETF cater to all the organizations that
you want, or that I want, or <*> wants, or whatever.
Right. Further, I believe the intention with the documents is to cater
to everyone:
"grant rights such that code components of IETF contributions can be
extracted, modified, and used by anyone in any way desired"
The complicated part is HOW that goal is achieved. It is easy to go
wrong even with the best intentions.
/Simon
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf