seems to be a reliable way to ensure that there are multiple understandings
of what the standard actually is - I find it hard to understand who that
is good for
Scott
-------
>From hartmans@xxxxxxx Sun Oct 10 16:01:46 2004
X-Original-To: sob@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-To: sob@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To: sob@xxxxxxxxxxx (scott bradner)
Cc: esr@xxxxxxxxxxx, Francis.Dupont@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, ietf@xxxxxxxx,
jas@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Copying conditions
References: <20041010195302.D0D1DD57DC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Sam Hartman <hartmans@xxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2004 16:02:02 -0400
In-Reply-To: <20041010195302.D0D1DD57DC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> (scott bradner's
message of "Sun, 10 Oct 2004 15:53:02 -0400 (EDT)")
User-Agent: Gnus/5.1006 (Gnus v5.10.6) Emacs/21.3 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>>>>> "scott" == scott bradner <sob@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> If you understand the open source position and disagree with
>> it, then there's probably little more to say.
scott> If the position is that the open source community can take
scott> an IETF consensus-based standard, modify it and claim that
scott> the new version is the "real" standard then I do disagree -
scott> I think that standards must be developed and modified in
scott> open consensus-based processes, not by individuals or
scott> groups unrelated to the group that developed the standard.
The open source community definitely wants to be able to guarantee to
its users the ability to take text or code from an IETF standard and
use that text or code in derivatives of that standard. Parts of the
open source community want to be able to claim that that standard is
the real unmodified thing. Other parts of the open source community
would be happy changing the name of the work and clearly indicating
what it is.
Areas where a discussion might be useful would be to explain why the
open source community wants to do this etc.
--Sam
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf