Re: [Autoconf] Licensing scheme for draft-ietf-autoconf-adhoc-addr-model-02.txt

[Ulrich Herberg <[e-mail]>]

Alex,

I second Zach. This I-D does not contain any code. And as you have been
indicated in the ROLL WG, this mailing list is the wrong place to discuss
the boilerplate.

Ulrich

On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 4:01 PM, Zach Shelby <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Alex,
>
> There is no code in this I-D, therefore this is pointless. And as this is
> the IETF trust boilerplate, it is also useless to discuss it here as you
> pointed out yourself.
>
> Zach
>
> On Feb 17, 2010, at 16:51 , Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
>
> > HEllo AUTOCONFers,
> >
> > About a non-technical matter of draft-ietf-autoconf-adhoc-addr-model.
> >
> > Its boilerplate currently says "Code Components extracted from this
> > document must include Simplified BSD License...".
> >
> > I disagree with it for three reasons.  First and foremost I do not want
> > Code Components extracted from this document to include that license,
> > but another one.  E.g. if linux kernel implements it then GPL is more
> > suitable.  Second, if there are no Code Components then it would be
> > useless to talk about Code Components.
> >
> > Also I disagree with it because the implementation experience which has
> > been shared on this list often has been about linux, and which is often
> > GPL and rarely BSD license.
> >
> > I also have to say I understand fully that the boilerplate is there from
> > the IETF Trust to which I am bound to abide, by the fact that I am
> > subscribed to this list.
> >
> > Respectfully,
> >
> > Alex
> > (this is about a series of I-Ds I am following in several WGs)
> >
> > Le 16/02/2010 20:59, Ryuji Wakikawa a écrit :
> >> Dear All,
> >>
> >> We have concluded the WGLC of
> >> draft-ietf-autoconf-adhoc-addr-model-01.txt on Dec/23/09, and have a
> >> -02 document issued, following up on this.
> >>
> >> Thanks to all for all the reviews and comments to this document!
> >>
> >> After Thomas and I (Chairs) carefully reviewed discussions on the
> >> mailing list, we do find that there is rough consensus for the
> >> current document.
> >>
> >> There was an individual objection to the description of the use of
> >> link-local address, but we did not detect wide support within the
> >> working group. This objection will, of course, be reflected in the
> >> PROTO write-up that will be sent to the IESG and the ADs, and
> >> reflected in the tracker.
> >>
> >> As a conclusion, we have established rough consensus to the new
> >> document.
> >>
> >> The WG chairs will start preparing the PROTO writeup for forwarding
> >> the document.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >>
> >> WG chairs
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing
> >> list [e-mail]
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
> >>
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Autoconf mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
>
> --
> http://www.sensinode.com
> http://zachshelby.org - My blog "On the Internet of Things"
> http://6lowpan.net - New book - "6LoWPAN: The Wireless Embedded Internet"
> Mobile: [phone]
>
> Zach Shelby
> Head of Research
> Sensinode Ltd.
> Kidekuja 2
> 88610 Vuokatti, FINLAND
>
> This e-mail and all attached material are confidential and may contain
> legally privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient,
> please contact the sender and delete the e-mail from your system without
> producing, distributing or retaining copies thereof.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Autoconf mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
>