Simon Josefsson <jas@xxxxxxxxxxx>: > I wouldn't go as far as saying IETF is part of the open-source > community. Well, it is in at least the historical sense -- that is, of having provided an important model for decentralized cooperation that shaped the open-source tradition. Fred Baker, representing IETF at the 1998 summit conference where the term "open source" was adopted, expressed no doubt that IETF belonged in the community we were declaring. The fact that most implementations of IETF standards are closed-source is not a disqualifier. It is sufficient that almost all IETF standards *can* be implemented in open source -- that, except for the serious policy defect near patents, the IETF process comes close to guaranteeing this. > However, I do believe that if IETF no longer provide a > service to the open-source community, IETF will have lost its power in > shepherding protocol standardization. Agreed. And I see this as a problem -- I value the IETF's institutional knowledge quite highly, and thus do not want it to lose that power. (Historical note: Yes, I have been an active IETF participant, notably in the development of the RFC2822 standard.) I'm mulling over some points for an essay in which I will discuss in depth the impact of open source on standards organizations. If and when I write it, I will post a pointer here. > The copying condition issue haven't yet reached critical mass, but > from what I can tell, it is getting closer and closer. This problem has a solution that should be both technically and politically easy. The IETF should adopt the appropriate variant of the Creative Commons license (permitting derivative works but requiring attribution) for RFCs. This change would have at least three good effects: 1. It would eliminate the technical problem with derivative works which you have pointed out. 2. It would harmonize IETF's practice with open-source community norms. 3. It would relieve IETF of the burden of maintaining its own legal language to solve this problem. The CC folks are specialists in the relevant legal issues and can do a better job. Since this change would remove restrictions from use of the RFCs rather than adding them, it probably does not require a plenary session but could be put through as an adninistrative change by the RFC editor, Is the RFC editor listening? -- <a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/";>Eric S. Raymond</a> _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf