On 2 Aug 2016, at 11:12 AM, Eggert, Lars <lars@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> 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. > > I guess we're getting on our soap boxes at this point? :-) > > But I don't define "the efforts of this standard body" in this way. I remain convinced that textual specs are required. Code is a nice addition, but really only useful if it can be rather freely used - which GPL code can’t. I’m going to join a few others in pushing back against this statement. FWIW I work for a closed-source vendor, so while I can copy BSD license code into my code-base, GPL (any flavor) is problematic. Still, I think any source code I can see is useful to me as an implementer. If I need to incorporate something into my code then either it’s really small (like a hash function) or I need to rewrite it anyway to fit. Either way I am likely to end up re-implementing quite a bit. Having a reference implementation is incredibly useful in getting my code to work correctly. Yoav