Ted Hardie <hardie@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > At 12:11 PM -0700 3/30/08, Joel M. Halpern wrote: >>I am still left with the impression that adding references to specific >>licenses to the draft is going to be confusing, not helpful. >>If we started saying "needs to be compatible with license X, Y, and Z" >>then we have at least two problems. We would have to confirm that X, Y, >>and Z all met our goals. And we would have to figure out why we should >>point to X, Y, and Z but not Q, W, or any other licenses that may be >>suitable as models. >> >>I have no problem with any individual suggesting to the Trustees that >>specific existing models may be a good way to achieve the stated goal. >>But adding references to example licenses, even if we were sure they >>matched our goals, will not help anyone understand the agreed goals. >>The existing statement is quite clear English. >> >>Yours, >>Joel M. Halpern > > I agree with Joel. We're trying to give instructions to the Trust that > cover the broadest possible user base; calling out specific licenses > or user bases either appears to privilege them or adds no value at > all. Suggesting to the Trustees that they consider specific licenses > or, even better, pointing their lawyers at the potholes others have > hit would be very useful. But this draft is not the place to do it. I believe the document is the place to do it. This is the only document were the IETF explains how the Trust should write its outgoing software license for code in RFCs. Useful considerations for that process should go into the document. My proposed text does not suggest specific licenses. That is a misunderstanding. /Simon _______________________________________________ IETF mailing list IETF@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf