On 02/08/2016 10:40, joel jaeggli wrote: > 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? No, "sponsor" does not automatically mean payment. One of the Merriam-Webster meanings is "assumes responsibility for some other person or thing." > I certainly have opinions as to what terms I'm willing to accept on IPR, > patented or otherwise. Of course. But if you're in IETF-land, you've already accepted IETF rules. > if it's a question of the inclusion of code in a working-group doc then > that's a question of consensus... Correct. But if I include code in any old I-D, I'm automatically placing it under the IETF Trust licence, which is simplified BSD. That's nothing to do with consensus. Brian > > 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 >>> >> > >