Norbert Bollow <nb@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> I also note that we can easily get onto a slippery slope here. >> Many companies view the GPL to be an encumbrance no less severe >> than the patent policies of other companies. Perhaps it is even >> more severe because encumbrances associated with patents that >> can be made to go away by the payment of money are less >> complicated to deal with (if one is willing to spent the money) >> than encumbrances under the GPS, which just don't go away. >> Would you recommend that IETF not permit any materials that >> might be encumbered under the GPL, etc.? > > I would recommend that in order to be considered acceptable, > implementation in GPL'd free software as well as implementation in > proprietary closed-source software must both be allowed by the > licensing terms of any patents. I think that is a good recommendation, and I support it. I would even consider a requirement that in order to move beyond Proposed Standard, a protocol needs to have a free implementation available. /Simon _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf