[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Section 6.5: Additional Licenses for IETF Contributions



Open Source licenses cannot grant more rights to that code or change the original licensing of that or its derivatives however...

Todd Glassey
----- Original Message ----- From: "Brian E Carpenter" <brc at zurich.ibm.com>
To: "Simon Josefsson" <simon at josefsson.org>
Cc: "John C Klensin" <john-ietf at jck.com>; <ipr-wg at ietf.org>
Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2007 8:02 AM
Subject: Re: Section 6.5: Additional Licenses for IETF Contributions



On 2007-05-03 16:36, Simon Josefsson wrote:
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 think that's correct, and I have the feeling that is where we will find the least rough consensus.

To be clear, if I write some code, contribute it to the IETF, and
subsequently contribute it to an open source project, I don't see
a problem. If I do it the other way round, that might be awkward.

Brian

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


_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wg at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg


_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wg at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg