On Wednesday 24 October 2007 14:01, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: > GPL would not be a criterion I would consider reasonable. And in particular > I would not accept the idea that the IETF or any other body be committed to > whatever notions insert themselves into RMS in the future. I have actually > met RMS. > > What I would like to do here is to arrive at a set of terms that is > considered to be sufficiently RANDZ to be sufficiently compatible with the > consensus amongst open source developers. At the moment I do not see a > consensus in favor of GPL 3.0. > > Having seen a WG crash and burn after theological discussions over open > source license compatibility I would like to see an IETF level consensus > that terms X are sufficiently open for most purposes. If someone had a > reason to beleive that these were not sufficient in a specific working > group for specific reasons these could then be argued in the WG if there > was a WG consensus that this was necessary.
I'd say it entirely depends. I can understand not wanting to hitch your wagon to any particular individual's view of the future of licensing. OTOH, where GPL software represents a significant fragment of the internet landscape, you have to (I think) accept GPL compatible licensing terms or give up on interoperability. BTW, I think Yahoo!'s revised DomainKeys license solves this is a useful way that may have more general utility. Scott K _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
