On Wed, 13 Oct 2004, Eric S. Raymond wrote: > Sam Hartman <hartmans@xxxxxxx>: > > I think it would be wonderful if the free software community could > > come to a consensus about what their requirements are. FWIW, I tried to initiate this dialogue a couple of times, the latest on Feb/Mar 2004, but as I received no response from FSF/OSS community, I gave up. > That's not hard. We need licensing conditions that don't require us > to either pay royalties or sign legal papers, and which don't > inhibit re-use of the code by restricting the area of application. Hmm.. Being an OSS/FSF enthusiast myself, I'm not sure if the last requirement, about code re-use, is a strict requirement. Sure, it would be nice if there wasn't such a thing, but it would seem to be better to get the first two points and fail at the third than get nothing at all. I mean, if I was writing code that would be under a patent, and free usage rights were granted for interoperability with a standard only, I'd just write a big fat warning in the code segment and the README file warning that don't copy my code to some completely unrelated project unless you know what you're doing. Which clauses of OSS/FSF licenses does "no re-use" infringe? -- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf