Re: bettering open source involvement

joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com> Mon, 01 August 2016 22:40 UTC

Return-Path: <joelja@bogus.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BE7F12D9B9 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Aug 2016 15:40:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.187
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.187 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.287] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SY-n_MIIwUxq for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Aug 2016 15:40:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nagasaki.bogus.com (nagasaki.bogus.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::81]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7B84112D9D1 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 1 Aug 2016 15:40:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mb-2.local ([IPv6:2620:11a:c081:20:cdad:b7f1:e3ec:bd8e]) (authenticated bits=0) by nagasaki.bogus.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id u71MeZqD076011 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NOT); Mon, 1 Aug 2016 22:40:35 GMT (envelope-from joelja@bogus.com)
X-Authentication-Warning: nagasaki.bogus.com: Host [IPv6:2620:11a:c081:20:cdad:b7f1:e3ec:bd8e] claimed to be mb-2.local
Subject: Re: bettering open source involvement
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, ietf@ietf.org
References: <CAA93jw71iUPb4vuFK5sMqo_CQEE9HSkchc9988=98FKUsv_1sw@mail.gmail.com> <579A6B76.70303@alvarezp.org> <ADB1E7FD-115C-40DF-97BA-618CFBB1C0EF@cable.comcast.com> <52FD39F9-6362-4C1D-BCCE-40A4DFC65EA0@netapp.com> <701c724f-efe2-6591-0378-12db4609adab@gmail.com>
From: joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
Message-ID: <5f620dee-27c6-4b13-7f2c-9b66c38da781@bogus.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2016 15:40:33 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:47.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/47.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <701c724f-efe2-6591-0378-12db4609adab@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="tXsfhmnUheTqQlPqrGg2nIgjax25RjPvS"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/nNrReLwQhR39iLmoL1O_WFe29kw>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Mon, 01 Aug 2016 22:40:39 -0000

On 8/1/16 1:44 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> On 02/08/2016 02:36, Eggert, Lars wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 2016-08-01, at 15:44, Livingood, Jason <Jason_Livingood@comcast.com> wrote:
>>> What if, in some future state, a given working group had a code repository and the working group was chartered not just with developing the standards but maintaining implementations of the code?
>>
>> as an addition to developing specs, that might be useful, if the spec remains the canonical standards output.
>>
>> "Go read the code" is not a useful answer if the code comes under a license (such as GPL) that taints the developer. 
> 
> 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.

"IETF WG sponsors code development"

I'm not sure what this means, are you paying for a developer?

I certainly have opinions as to what terms I'm willing to accept on IPR,
patented or otherwise.

if it's a question of the inclusion of code in a working-group doc then
that's a question of consensus...

joel

>    Brian
> 
>> (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.)
>>
>> Lars
>>
>