John C Klensin <john-ietf at jck.com> writes:
Does that disentangle things?
If put into the document, that would at least make the situation
clearer. I don't think the situation would be ideal though.
If I understand your proposal correctly, it does not allow the inclusion
of material taken from BSD/GPL implementations into IETF documents, at
least not without permission to re-license the material under the IETF
license from all copyright holders.
I believe, for example, example code is helpful in many stages when new
technology is introduced -- testing, implementing, interop testing etc.
For example, I believe that IDNA implementations would not have been
available as quickly if the Punycode code had not been available in the
RFC. Essentially, it is good for the IETF if the standards are easier
and quicker to implement and deploy. Therefor, I believe the IETF rules
should permit including external material. If you look in the last
years worth of RFCs, there is already source code borrowed from external
projects, with various licensing conditions in them. I haven't seen
anyone claim it has been bad for the IETF to include such code, and I
know people find it useful. So it is already appear to be running
practice.
I don't know if it is possible to devise a license situation which would
make everyone happy here. It depends on whether people believe having
additional copyright notices and licenses is harmful. As someone who
contributes to software with multiple copyright notices and multiple
licenses every day, I feel perfectly comfortable with that situation.
/Simon
_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wg at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg