Ted Hardie wrote: > The point being, of course, that there is a world of difference between > "many" and "all" here. If there is no development community using > the GPL in an area, forcing the IPR restrictions to meet a GPL test > may hinder development rather than enhance it, especially in > cases where the only requirement in a license is to request it. > For many development communities, that is not an issue since it > requires no monetary outlay. Will you please stop talking about GPL as if it is the only open source license relevant here! My concern is that *all* free and open source licensors be able to implement IETF specifications without patent encumbrances. And *all* proprietary licensors too, for that matter. There ought to be no "GPL test" for IETF specifications, other than that our specifications be implementable and distributable under the GPL *and any other* license. As for setting our IPR policy based on whether there be an actual GPL (or other specific license) implementation at the time the specification is being created and approved, that's a strange proposal. The freedom and openness we seek is for implementations of IETF specifications now *or in the future*. We may not be using GPL now, but maybe someone will want to later. Why shouldn't IETF's IPR policy be compatible with that? /Larry > -----Original Message----- > From: Ted Hardie [mailto:hardie@xxxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 9:17 AM > To: Scott Kitterman; ietf@xxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: A priori IPR choices > > >No. My point was that for the IETF, interoperability is the goal, not > some > >general statement about goodness of Free software. In many/most/maybe > all > >cases, this will require any IPR restrictions to be GPL compatible. > > Can you think of an open-source project interested in the work of CCAMP? > That was one of the examples neither Sam nor I could immediately > come up with, but I'd be interested in hearing if it is just too far off > my > stomping grounds. > > The point being, of course, that there is a world of difference between > "many" and "all" here. If there is no development community using > the GPL in an area, forcing the IPR restrictions to meet a GPL test > may hinder development rather than enhance it, especially in > cases where the only requirement in a license is to request it. > For many development communities, that is not an issue since it > requires no monetary outlay. > > Speaking only for myself, > regards, > Ted > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf