At 8:16 AM -0700 3/28/08, Simon Josefsson wrote: >"Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> I do not understand the problem you want addressed. The way this is >> worded, it doesn't matter what "open source" or "free software" is or >> becomes. The intention is to grant anyone to do anything with the code >> segments. That's what we ask the trust to do. Further in line. > >The problem is that without proper guidelines on how to make a software >license compatible with free software licenses, it is possible to end up >with something that won't be compatible, and thus wouldn't meet the >intended goals. > >Given that the IETF Trust doesn't publish drafts or have a history of >asking for community review on the legal license they chose, I believe >it is important that the IETF articulate its wishes in ways that reduce >chances of misunderstandings or are open for interpretation. I disagree with Simon's addition. The intent of the document is to give the Trust instructions from the community that we want the code in RFCs to be available to anyone to do anything. As Joel put it: "The intention is to grant anyone to do anything with the code segments. That's what we ask the trust to do. " That was the consensus of the working group, and I believe it should remain the consensus of the IETF as a whole--it gives the widest possible reach to the standard. Crafting the legal language to make that work is a task best left to lawyers; adding specific compatibility requirements that appear to privilege one set of follow-on outputs is both confusing and ultimately pointless. The language in the draft is clear that we want the code to be usable by *anyone*. It wouldn't add anything to that mandate to list specific individuals, and it doesn't add anything to list specific licenses that will only apply after an individual has already used the code. regards, Ted _______________________________________________ IETF mailing list IETF@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf