On 8/1/16 1:44 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > On 02/08/2016 02:36, Eggert, Lars wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On 2016-08-01, at 15:44, Livingood, Jason <Jason_Livingood@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> What if, in some future state, a given working group had a code repository and the working group was chartered not just with developing the standards but maintaining implementations of the code? >> >> as an addition to developing specs, that might be useful, if the spec remains the canonical standards output. >> >> "Go read the code" is not a useful answer if the code comes under a license (such as GPL) that taints the developer. > > This is a *very* important point. If an IETF WG sponsors code development, it needs to > be under an IETF-friendly licence. One way is to post it as an I-D. Another way is the > BSD 2-Clause "Simplified" or "FreeBSD" License. GPL is not a useful option. "IETF WG sponsors code development" I'm not sure what this means, are you paying for a developer? I certainly have opinions as to what terms I'm willing to accept on IPR, patented or otherwise. if it's a question of the inclusion of code in a working-group doc then that's a question of consensus... joel > Brian > >> (This is a major reason what we are doing IETF specs for DCTCP and CUBIC - so that they can be implemented without needing to > read Linux kernel code.) >> >> Lars >> >
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature