Re: bettering open source involvement

Michael Richardson <> Tue, 02 August 2016 15:42 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E925712D594 for <>; Tue, 2 Aug 2016 08:42:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.188
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.188 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.287, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4r4CFmRkZ1iW for <>; Tue, 2 Aug 2016 08:42:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6373712D7A5 for <>; Tue, 2 Aug 2016 08:42:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 640C52009E for <>; Tue, 2 Aug 2016 11:53:02 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BD72638D1 for <>; Tue, 2 Aug 2016 11:42:47 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <>
Subject: Re: bettering open source involvement
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.6+dev; GNU Emacs 24.5.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2016 11:42:47 -0400
Message-ID: <>
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2016 15:42:51 -0000

Brian E Carpenter <> 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 <>ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-