I would accept GPL 2.0, but not GPL without any qualifier such that the IETF was required to comply with whatever scheme RMS has thought up this week to reinsert himself at the center of attention.
From: Tony Finch on behalf of Tony Finch
Sent: Wed 24/10/2007 3:04 PM
To: Hallam-Baker, Phillip
Cc: ietf@xxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: A priori IPR choices
On Wed, 24 Oct 2007, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
> GPL would not be a criterion I would consider reasonable. And in
> particular I would not accept the idea that the IETF or any other body
> be committed to whatever notions insert themselves into RMS in the
> future.
There are plenty of much less rabid open source licences which have
similar approaches to patents as the GPL: see the Apache licence version
2 or the Mozilla Public Licence version 1.1, both of which include
non-bureaucratic patent licensing and anti-litigation clauses.
Tony.
--
f.a.n.finch <dot@xxxxxxxx> http://dotat.at/
LUNDY FASTNET IRISH SEA: EAST OR SOUTHEAST 3 OR 4. SLIGHT OR MODERATE. FAIR.
MODERATE OR GOOD.
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf