Phillip Hallam-Baker <pbaker@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. I wouldn't have any objections to a policy which establishes the criterion of GPLv2 compatibility in addition to compatibility with proprietary closed-source software. It would IMO be better however to formulate the criterion in a way which avoids explicitly mentioning GPLv2. Rather, I would suggest to adopt a policy formulation that tells as explicitly as possible how to check whether the terms of a patent license or patent non-assertion promise are acceptable. Greetings, Norbert. -- Norbert Bollow <nb@xxxxxxxxx> http://Norbert.ch President of the Swiss Internet User Group SIUG http://SIUG.ch Working on establishing a non-corrupt and truly /open/ international standards organization http://OpenISO.org _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf