On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 9:10 AM, Dave Taht <dave.taht@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 4:36 PM, Eggert, Lars <lars@xxxxxxxxxx> 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 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.) > > Only 10 (?) years after full support for cubic entered the linux > kernel, and 3 after dctcp. > > If you define the efforts of this standards body as one to produce BSD > licensed code (which is basically the case), it will continue to lag > behind the bleeding edge and continue to become more and more > irrelevant. > > It's not just the deployed code in kernels that is a problem, it is > also that the best of the tools available to prototype new network > code are GPL'd. NS3, for example, is gpl. The routing protocols > incorporated in bird and quagga are GPL. Bind is BSD, but nominum is > proprietary and dnsmasq, GPLd. RIOT-OS, which is a leading contender for IoT stuff, is LGPL v2.1. https://github.com/RIOT-OS/RIOT > There is increasingly no place to design, develop, and test new stuff > without starting from a gpl base. > > Worse, what happens here at ietf without use of these tools, is that > we end up with non-open-source code's experiments and results being > presented, without any means for an independent experimenter to > verify, reproduce, or extend. > > I think it would do a lot of semantic good if the ietf would stop > referring to "open source"[1] and always refer directly to the > licenses under which the code it works on that are allowed. There are > certainly new areas of interest like npv, etc, that are proceeding > with more vendor-friendly code licensing schemes, although I am > dubious about the performance benefits of moving all this stuff into > userspace, particularly when a seeming, primary, goal is to avoid > making free software, rather than engineering a good, clean, correct > engineering solution. > > It has been my hope that since the alice decision re patents (80% of > disputed software patents being invalidated), the rise of > organizations offering patent pool protections like the open > inventions network, and I think (IANAL), that apis cannot be > copyrighted in google vs oracle - ends up meaning that a developer can > not longer be polluted merely by looking at GPL'd code once in a > while. Because we do. > > The actual implementations of anything for anything else will tend to > vary so much due to API differences, and the expressible logic in the > algorithms themselves generally simple, that, particularly when the > authors of the code have presented it for standardization, under any > license, that the exposure to further risk is minimized. > > There are powerful advantages to the GPL (and LGPL[2]) over > "standardization". Notably there is an implicit patent grant, and > ongoing maintenance is enforced by an equal spirit of co-operation. > It's a better starting point than to hang with a sword of Damocles > over your head wondering if someone will patent something out from > under you. > > I wish we could just get on with making the internet a better place. > >> Lars > > [1] The GPL is a considered an acceptable license under the terms of > the open source inititatives: > > https://opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical > > [2] Of all the open source licenses out there, I happen to like the > LGPLv2 the best. It is only viral if you make changes to the library. > > > -- > Dave Täht > Let's go make home routers and wifi faster! With better software! > http://blog.cerowrt.org -- Dave Täht Let's go make home routers and wifi faster! With better software! http://blog.cerowrt.org