Re: IETF Last Call for two IPR WG Dcouments

"Wes Beebee (wbeebee)" <wbeebee@cisco.com> writes:

> I would think that any license for RFC code should meet two
> requirements:
> 1) It should be usable by anyone in the open source community
> (compatible 
>    with any open source/free software license).

Exactly.  The text I proposed provides three ways to test whether a
proposed license would satisfy those requirements.

> 2) It should be usable by anyone in any corporation who sells a closed 
>    source product.

Agreed.  Is there any license requirements we can link to regarding
this?  However, if a license meet the requirements of OSD/FSD/DFSG, as
long as it is not copyleft, I believe it will meet the requirements of
all proprietary solutions as well.  Would you agree with that?

> That way, we can ensure interoperability between open source and closed
> source 
> implementations.  Note that these requirements greatly constrain the
> form that the
> license should take.

Agreed.

/Simon

> - Wes
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Margaret Wasserman
> Sent: Friday, March 28, 2008 2:30 PM
> To: Ray Pelletier
> Cc: Simon Josefsson; Joel M. Halpern; ietf@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: IETF Last Call for two IPR WG Dcouments
>
>
> Ray Pelletier wrote:
>> The Trustees adopted the Non-Profit Open Software License 3.0 in 
>> September 2007 as the license it would use for open sourcing software 
>> done as work-for-hire and that contributed to it, at that time 
>> thinking of code contributed by IETF volunteers.  See:  http:// 
>> trustee.ietf.org/licenses.html
>>
>> Is it clear that the contributions contemplated by these documents 
>> would require a different treatment?
>
>
> Disclaimer:  IANAL, and I apologize if I am misunderstanding  
> something about the license you referenced, but...
>
> It seems to me that the "Non-Profit Open Software License 3.0", while  
> fine for the source code to IETF tools, places more restrictions and  
> more burden on someone who uses the code than we would want to place  
> on someone who uses a MIB, XML schema or other "code" from our RFCs.
>
> For example, the license places an obligation on someone using the  
> source code to distribute copies of the original source code with any  
> products they distribute.  Effectively, this means that anyone who  
> distributes products based on MIBs, XML schemas or other "code" from  
> RFCs would need to put up a partial RFC repository.  Why would we  
> want that?
>
> Margaret
>
> _______________________________________________
> IETF mailing list
> IETF@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf