Theodore Tso <tytso@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Oct 25, 2007 at 10:58:32AM +1300, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > > On 2007-10-25 08:32, Ted Hardie wrote: > >> At 10:02 AM -0700 10/24/07, Lawrence Rosen wrote: > >>> Ted Hardie wrote: > >>> And that will never fly (IANAL) with the GPL and so here we sit at an > >>> impasse again. So either a GPL implementation is important to > >>> interoperability in a given space or it is not. If it is important to > >>> interoperabilty, then this is a showstopper. If not, maybe not. > >> Hope that helps restore context for you. > > I would argue that a GPL implemention is not important to > interoperability testing as long as there is a BSD-licensed > implementation. In fact, to the extent that all or most of the > commercial products are based off of the same BSD-licensed code base, > this can actually *improve* interoperability. (I may have been > awarded the 2006 FSF Award for the Advancement of Free Software, but > if my goal were to make sure that specification was going to get > widely adopted, I'd use a BSD license, not a GPl license, for the > reference implementation.) I don't disagree with anything that you wrote, but the point here is that if there's a patent with GPL-incompatible licensing, you don't have permission to link that BSD-licensed code into a GPL-licensed program and distribute the result. 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