Re: bettering open source involvement

On 8/1/16 1:44 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> On 02/08/2016 02:36, Eggert, Lars wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 2016-08-01, at 15:44, Livingood, Jason 
> > <Jason_Livingood(_at_)comcast(_dot_)com> wrote:
> > > What if, in some future state, a given working group had a code repository 
> > > and the working group was chartered not just with developing the standards 
> > > but maintaining implementations of the code?
> > as an addition to developing specs, that might be useful, if the spec 
> > remains the canonical standards output.
> >
> > "Go read the code" is not a useful answer if the code comes under a license 
> > (such as GPL) that taints the developer. 
> This is a *very* important point. If an IETF WG sponsors code development, it 
> needs to
> be under an IETF-friendly licence. One way is to post it as an I-D. Another 
> way is the
> BSD 2-Clause "Simplified" or "FreeBSD" License. GPL is not a useful option.
"IETF WG sponsors code development"

I'm not sure what this means, are you paying for a developer?

I certainly have opinions as to what terms I'm willing to accept on IPR,
patented or otherwise.

if it's a question of the inclusion of code in a working-group doc then
that's a question of consensus...

joel

>    Brian
>
> > (This is a major reason what we are doing IETF specs for DCTCP and CUBIC - 
> > so that they can be implemented without needing to
> read Linux kernel code.)
> > Lars

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature