On Thursday 25 October 2007 11:33, Theodore Tso 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.) > > Of course there can be are problems when the reference implementation > doesn't quite jibe with the formal printed specification, but that is > true regardless how the reference implementation is licensed. > The context wasn't reference implementations, but deployment in the real world where interoperability among different implementations (some with GPL licensing) is desired. Scott K _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf