IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: IETF and open source license compatibility (Was: Re: yet another comment on draft-housley-tls-authz-extns-07.txt)

Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> Thu, 12 February 2009 13:35 UTC

Return-Path: <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 488943A68D6 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Feb 2009 05:35:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.512
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.512 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.087, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tCQXRd8Ya4cC for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Feb 2009 05:35:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp.piuha.net (p130.piuha.net [IPv6:2001:14b8:400::130]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57DC43A68CC for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Feb 2009 05:35:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp.piuha.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37418198714; Thu, 12 Feb 2009 15:35:10 +0200 (EET)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (unknown [IPv6:2001:14b8:400::130]) by smtp.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA6DF1986EF; Thu, 12 Feb 2009 15:35:09 +0200 (EET)
Message-ID: <49942540.6050105@piuha.net>
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 15:33:52 +0200
From: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (X11/20090105)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at>, Simon Josefsson <simon@josefsson.org>
Subject: Re: IETF and open source license compatibility (Was: Re: yet another comment on draft-housley-tls-authz-extns-07.txt)
References: <87bpt9ou7d.fsf@mocca.josefsson.org> <C5B8BAE5.30347%stewe@stewe.org> <87k57vlwfu.fsf@mocca.josefsson.org> <49941899.5010506@piuha.net> <alpine.LSU.2.00.0902121243481.4546@hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LSU.2.00.0902121243481.4546@hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV using ClamSMTP
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 13:35:08 -0000

Tony,

> Except that it prevents using the text of an RFC as comments in an
> implementation.
>   
OK -- I can see how that would be useful, but its not clear to me that 
it would necessarily be a blocking requirement. Reality check: I'm 
writing this e-mail to you and at least my side application, OS, and the 
first couple of hops are completely pure open source yet every protocol 
I use before until L2 is from an IETF RFC. Maybe the same on your side. 
And somehow that code got written, presumably without lots of copying of 
RFC text... And I can think of some RFCs where I'd rather not use that 
text... (Comments? Who needs comments?)

But in any case, I wouldn't mind if we experimented with a more relaxed 
license for some set of RFCs...

Jari

v2.34.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status