Re: License File for Open Source Repositories

joel jaeggli <> Sat, 24 December 2016 22:52 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3E15129485; Sat, 24 Dec 2016 14:52:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.1] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1kW_dKaOhNU5; Sat, 24 Dec 2016 14:52:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:418:1::81]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6C12A12950D; Sat, 24 Dec 2016 14:52:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mbp-4.local ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id uBOMqql9001771 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NOT); Sat, 24 Dec 2016 22:52:52 GMT (envelope-from
X-Authentication-Warning: Host [] claimed to be mbp-4.local
Subject: Re: License File for Open Source Repositories
To: Dave Taht <>, IETF Discussion Mailing List <>, The IESG <>
References: <> <>
From: joel jaeggli <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2016 14:52:47 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.12; rv:50.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/50.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="QDvc4AI3MPjRqM24KGBrr2CT244twPGjq"
Archived-At: <>
Cc: IETF Announcement List <>
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: Sat, 24 Dec 2016 22:52:56 -0000

On 12/23/16 12:12 PM, Dave Taht wrote:
> "open source != BSD". There are better licenses out there - notably
> apache 2.0 is pretty clear, legally, in places where BSD is not. I am
> also under the impression that GPLv2 has an implicit patent grant
> (which would be a real boon in clearing some matters up long before it
> would ever become an issue).
> But IANAL. Have you taken this proposed policy up with OSI?
The statement addresses the use of and obligations of contributors to
repositories. It does not, nor does it intend to change the licensing
terms of contributions, present in bcp 78,79 and the TLP.
> On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 7:36 AM, IESG Secretary <> wrote:
>> The IESG has observed that many working groups work with open source
>> repositories even for their work on specifications. That's great, and
>> we're happy to see this development, as it fits well the working style
>> of at least some of our working groups. This style is also likely to be
>> more popular in the future.
>> As always, we'd like to understand areas where we can either be helpful
>> in bringing in some new things such as tooling, or where we need to
>> integrate better between the repository world and the IETF process. As
>> an example of the latter, we're wondering whether it would be helpful to
>> have a standard boilerplate for these repositories with respect to the
>> usual copyright and other matters. The intent is for such text to be
>> placed in a suitable file (e.g., "CONTRIBUTING"), probably along with
>> some additional information that is already present in these files in
>> many repositories. The idea is that people should treat, e.g., text
>> contributions to a draft-foo.xml in a repository much in the same way as
>> they treat text contributions on the list, at least when it comes to
>> copyright, IPR, and other similar issues.
>> We have worked together with the IETF legal team and few key experts
>> from the IETF who are actively using these repositories, and suggest the
>> following text.
>> We're looking to make a decision on this matter on our January 19th,
>> 2017 IESG Telechat, and would appreciate feedback before then. This
>> message will be resent after the holiday period is over to make sure it
>> is noticed. Please send comments to the IESG ( by 2017-01-17.
>> The IESG
>> ——
>> This repository relates to activities in the Internet Engineering Task
>> Force(IETF). All material in this repository is considered Contributions
>> to the IETF Standards Process, as defined in the intellectual property
>> policies of IETF currently designated as BCP 78
>> (, BCP 79
>> ( and the IETF Trust Legal
>> Provisions (TLP) Relating to IETF Documents
>> (
>> Any edit, commit, pull-request, comment or other change made to this
>> repository constitutes Contributions to the IETF Standards Process. You
>> agree to comply with all applicable IETF policies and procedures,
>> including, BCP 78, 79, the TLP, and the TLP rules regarding code
>> components (e.g. being subject to a Simplified BSD License) in
>> Contributions.