"Wes Beebee (wbeebee)" <wbeebee@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > I would think that any license for RFC code should meet two > requirements: > 1) It should be usable by anyone in the open source community > (compatible > with any open source/free software license). Exactly. The text I proposed provides three ways to test whether a proposed license would satisfy those requirements. > 2) It should be usable by anyone in any corporation who sells a closed > source product. Agreed. Is there any license requirements we can link to regarding this? However, if a license meet the requirements of OSD/FSD/DFSG, as long as it is not copyleft, I believe it will meet the requirements of all proprietary solutions as well. Would you agree with that? > That way, we can ensure interoperability between open source and closed > source > implementations. Note that these requirements greatly constrain the > form that the > license should take. Agreed. /Simon > - Wes > > -----Original Message----- > From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of > Margaret Wasserman > Sent: Friday, March 28, 2008 2:30 PM > To: Ray Pelletier > Cc: Simon Josefsson; Joel M. Halpern; ietf@xxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: IETF Last Call for two IPR WG Dcouments > > > Ray Pelletier wrote: >> The Trustees adopted the Non-Profit Open Software License 3.0 in >> September 2007 as the license it would use for open sourcing software >> done as work-for-hire and that contributed to it, at that time >> thinking of code contributed by IETF volunteers. See: http:// >> trustee.ietf.org/licenses.html >> >> Is it clear that the contributions contemplated by these documents >> would require a different treatment? > > > Disclaimer: IANAL, and I apologize if I am misunderstanding > something about the license you referenced, but... > > It seems to me that the "Non-Profit Open Software License 3.0", while > fine for the source code to IETF tools, places more restrictions and > more burden on someone who uses the code than we would want to place > on someone who uses a MIB, XML schema or other "code" from our RFCs. > > For example, the license places an obligation on someone using the > source code to distribute copies of the original source code with any > products they distribute. Effectively, this means that anyone who > distributes products based on MIBs, XML schemas or other "code" from > RFCs would need to put up a partial RFC repository. Why would we > want that? > > Margaret > > _______________________________________________ > IETF mailing list > IETF@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ IETF mailing list IETF@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf