"Spencer Dawkins" <spencer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Hi, Simon,
>
>> If the trust uses a software license for code that doesn't meet the
>> requirements in, say, the DFSG, would you consider that a failure? If
>> that happens, Debian cannot include such code.
>>
>> Using the NPOSL3.0 as the software license, which I read Ray's message
>> to imply was being considered, would be one way to prevent Debian from
>> using the code.
>
> OK so far...
>
>> I would agree that the references should be for a specific version of
>> the documents, if that is your point.
>
> OK, I unsubscribed to IPR two or three years ago (or maybe it was two or
> three PR-actions ago, I can't remember which), so maybe I'm really confused,
> but
>
> - I would disagree with referring to a specific version of these documents,
> because tellng the trust "it has to be X-1.0-compatible" will just frustrate
> all of us when there's an X-1.1 version, so then we get to have this
> conversation all over again - or else, we just trust the trust to do the
> right thing (which is what we're discussing now) - or am I misunderstanding?
Somewhat; the point of referencing these documents, even if the
reference is versioned, is to provide a good sanity test of the license
which is needed. If the license doesn't meet these requirements, it
won't fulfil what's described in the document already. Yes, these
references may be revised and be more refined, but the current one would
still be helpful when evaluating potential licenses.
> - please, please, please do not try to craft precise guidance on
> ietf@xxxxxxxxx We can't even get our own process BCPs right. If there is a
> new uber-software license developed thirty minutes after this draft is
> published as an RFC, I bet we would want the trust to look seriously at it,
> and maybe even do the right thing ("and please ignore our guidance if that
> helps you do the right thing").
Sure, this will be a moving target. That's why the document doesn't
contain legal text, but just advice on what the legal text should say.
> I don't understand how we can have a trust that we can't trust to do the
> right thing at some level. The draft is pretty clear about our intentions.
My point is that I don't think the draft is clear. There is ample
wiggle room and opportunity to go wrong with the current text, and
people have gone wrong before in this area.
/Simon
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf