> From: Keith Moore [mailto:moore@xxxxxxxxxx] > However that doesn't mean that IETF should necessarily > endorse, or even > document, any of these technologies. Sometimes it's a disservice to > the community to document a bad idea. The protaganists in this matter have already conceeded the technical issue. It was only when an issue was found with the IPR license on offer that an objection arose. I do not think that it is sensible for the IETF to lend credibility to the idea of a GPL bit that ensures that the bits on the wire are only processed be software that is in strict compliance with a particular interpretation of the GPL. Open software is a good idea, it is a good idea to require that standards be implimentable using open technologies. It is not a good idea to allow standards to be used to attempt to prohibit use of technology because the licensing terms do not meet criteria which the IETF is unwilling to define or to enforce as a universal standard. I think it would be a good idea for the IETF to either pick an IPR standard or to require WGs to specify what their IPR standard will be when they begin a WG. I would be quite happy for the IETF to adopt the same IPR policy as W3C and require all standards to meet that standard of being open and unencumbered. What is not a good idea is to attempt to achieve consensus on this issue after the WG charter has been agreed. I note that the W3C policy is distributed under a creative commons license. I suggest that future WGs adopt it as is when they make their charter proposals. Otherwise they are likely to find themselves in the same position that MARID did. _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf