On 02/08/2016 10:40, joel jaeggli wrote:
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?
No, "sponsor" does not automatically mean payment. One of the
Merriam-Webster meanings is "assumes responsibility for some other
person or thing."
I certainly have opinions as to what terms I'm willing to accept on IPR,
patented or otherwise.
Of course. But if you're in IETF-land, you've already accepted IETF rules.
if it's a question of the inclusion of code in a working-group doc then
that's a question of consensus...
Correct. But if I include code in any old I-D, I'm automatically placing
it under the IETF Trust licence, which is simplified BSD. That's nothing
to do with consensus.
Brian
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