Re: IETF and open source license compatibility

"Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com> writes:

> I disagree Simon.
>
> Free Software authors (for any variety of free software I know of) are
> free to submit I-Ds describing protocols that they define.

Sure.  And some do...

> They can not take their licensed code, with license restrictions, and
> put it in the RFC.

Right.

> The primary reason for this restriction, in my view, is that some of
> the licenses out there would actually interfere with commercial
> implementations of the RFC if such double-licensing were allowed and
> done.  And just as we want to allow free implementations of the RFCs,
> we also want to allow commercial implementations of RFCs, for a wide
> range of commercial goals (just as there are a wide range of free
> rules and goals.)

Right.

(However, that doesn't explain why the IETF disallows BSD licensed code
in IETF documents.)

> Preventing folks from putting code with non-IETF licenses into RFCs
> allows everyone to write RFCs, and allows a wide range of code to be
> included in RFCs.  Making sure that code which is included in RFCs can
> be used by any implementator, as they need to, is important and
> useful. Extra licenses distinctly interfere with that.
> (We do permit references to licensed code in our documents, including
> specific URLs.)

Agreed.

> And having a restriction that folks can not take and modify large
> blocks of text from the RFC does not prevent them from either writing
> RFCs or implementing protocols defined in RFCs.

Right.

Please re-read what I said earlier, because I don't see any disagreement
with what I've claimed before.  My claim has been that authors cannot
publish "free", as in licensed under a free software compatible
licensed, documents through the IETF.  You explained again that this is
the case, and you gave the reasons for this.  So we seem to agree.

/Simon

> Yours,
> Joel
>
> Simon Josefsson wrote:
>> Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> writes:
>>
>>> Simon,
>>>
>>>>>> That's not possible because the IETF policies does not permit free
>>>>>> software compatible licensing on Internet drafts published by the IETF.
>>>>>>       
>>> ...
>>>> See RFC 5378:
>>>>
>>>>    It is also important to note that additional copyright notices are
>>>>    not permitted in IETF Documents except ...
>>> ...
>>>> The IETF copying conditions are not compatible with free software
>>>> licenses (modification is not allowed), and additional copyright notices
>>>> are not permitted.  The vast majority of free software licenses is built
>>>> on the concept of copyright notices and requires preserving the
>>>> copyright notice.
>>>>   
>>> I agree that there are problematic case, but I believe I hope everyone
>>> realizes this is only the case if the RFC in question has
>>> code. Otherwise it really does not matter. Only some RFCs have code.
>>
>> I don't realize that, and completely disagree.  If you want free
>> software authors to publish free standards (as in free software
>> compatible) in the IETF, the IETF needs to allow free software
>> compatible licensing of their work.  Right now, the IETF disallow
>> standards published through the IETF to be licensed under a free
>> software compatible license.  The only alternative for these authors is
>> to release their work outside of the IETF.  This may result in some free
>> software authors doesn't bother publishing their work in the IETF
>> because the licensing models are incompatible.
>>
>>> I support experiments in this space, though. And it would be really
>>> good to get more of the open source folk participate in IETF
>>> specification work. There are many important open source extensions
>>> and protocols that fit in IETF's scope but were never documented. Even
>>> if source code is freely available, you could have several
>>> implementations, commercial vs. open source interoperability issues,
>>> etc.
>>
>> I agree.
>>
>> /Simon
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ietf mailing list
>> Ietf@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>>