>>>>> "Ted" == Ted Hardie <hardie@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
Ted> At 6:23 PM -0500 1/26/05, Sam Hartman wrote:
>> I brought up the issue of sublicensing. Perhaps I missed
>> discussion in the flood of messages. Assuming I didn't, let me
>> try and prod people?
>>
>> Do people believe the issue of sublicensing is not worth
>> discussing or are we all just unsure what to say about it?
Ted> My take is that if we develop it, we can set up the licensing
Ted> to be free and sublicensable. No need to put that in the
Ted> BCP.
OK, although I think we are insisting on similar things already.
I'm also concerned about sublicensing the rights to data.
I think I'm particularly concerned about this issue explicitly because
we don't have these rights under RFC 3667 and when I first brought up
the issue Harald didn't think it would be a good thing to insist on.
Ted> If we are using a service developed by a provider also
Ted> serving others, the provider may well want to license certain
Ted> software to us without granting us to sublicense it to
Ted> others, as that's their business.
Completely agreed.
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf