On Sat, 2004-12-11 at 15:46, Scott Kitterman wrote:
On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 14:04:17 -0500 Mark Shewmaker
<mark(_at_)primefactor(_dot_)com>
wrote:
1. Protocols must not require the use of any licenses
which would have the effect of noticeably slowing deployment,
or have the effect of making implementation noticeably more
difficult.
It would be equally problematic if proprietary implementations were
prohibited. Solutions need to be open to all.
Solutions that are effectively not open to proprietary implementations
would then slow (proprietary) deployment and make implementation more
difficult.
Non-Open Source implementors probably won't have so much of a problem
with patent licenses that require reciprocal licensing or some sort of
don't-sue-me-and-I-won't-sue-you type terms, but even these types of
restrictions can sometimes be incompatible with the OSD.
That's my reasoning for a more general description combined with a more
specific and Open Source related addendum.
I wanted to cover both bases, but there's probably a better way to word
all this. (Any alternative wording suggestions? :-) )
--
Mark Shewmaker
mark(_at_)primefactor(_dot_)com