>>>>> "Ted" == Ted Hardie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Ted> At 6:23 PM -0500 1/26/05, Sam Hartman wrote: >> I brought up the issue of sublicensing. Perhaps I missed >> discussion in the flood of messages. Assuming I didn't, let me >> try and prod people? >> >> Do people believe the issue of sublicensing is not worth >> discussing or are we all just unsure what to say about it? Ted> My take is that if we develop it, we can set up the licensing Ted> to be free and sublicensable. No need to put that in the Ted> BCP. OK, although I think we are insisting on similar things already. I'm also concerned about sublicensing the rights to data. I think I'm particularly concerned about this issue explicitly because we don't have these rights under RFC 3667 and when I first brought up the issue Harald didn't think it would be a good thing to insist on. Ted> If we are using a service developed by a provider also Ted> serving others, the provider may well want to license certain Ted> software to us without granting us to sublicense it to Ted> others, as that's their business. Completely agreed. _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf