Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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.
GPL is not useful for **some** companies that want to exploit the code directly.
There are a number of advantages otherwise to GPL.
*One* of them is that it becomes very clear to the IETF when patent claims on
the protocol are incompatible with the GPL.
The other major advantage has to do with how and when patches get contributed
back to the system over time if the code turns out to be more than an
existence proof.
>> (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.)
Aside from the white-room issue of reading source code, the code doesn't
explain to how deal with corner cases that the coders didn't consider.
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature