>>>>> "Simon" == Simon Josefsson <simon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
Simon> 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.
Simon> I think that is a good recommendation, and I support it.
Simon> I would even consider a requirement that in order to move
Simon> beyond Proposed Standard, a protocol needs to have a free
Simon> implementation available.
I'd love to get there, but I think building that consensus today would
be a non-starter.
Let me suggest starting with a lesser goal. Try to build a consensus
that unless there is a good reason to do otherwise, it needs to be
possible to write an open-source implementation of a standard and that
the absence of such an implementation should be considered a red flag
when advancing beyond proposed.
Basically I'd like to start by getting to a point where we assume that
open-source implementations are a goal and that we explicitly decide
that they are not a requirement in contexts where that makes sense.
I suspect we would run into resistance building that consensus but it
might be worth trying.
--Sam
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf