This is another side-discussion that may be useful to do publicly, forwarded with Sam's permission.
This discussion brings up another (subtler) point about allowing re-licensing between works licensed under the BSD license directly and works licensed under the newly proposed BSD-license-via-IETF-pointer. If the new Trust text allowed recipients to re-license code back to the original BSD licensed code, and not the BSD-license-via-IETF-pointer license, I would not object to the new text. It would allow me to do what I prefer, and allowing others to do what they prefer. I would continue to feel that the new text is mis-guided and opens for solutions that I believe are sub-optimal, but if others believe they want that option, I would not be against having that option (as long as I can use their BSD-license-via-IETF-pointer derived work under the original BSD license). /Simon Sam Hartman <hartmans-i...@mit.edu> writes: > Simon, I appreciate your concern about the BSD license. > > However, I'm not entirely sure why it matters. > > There are apparently some lawyers out there who believe the pointer > approach is reasonable. What's the harm in the trust permitting this? > > If your legal advice suggests that using that option would produce > inconsistent results, then you can simply include the full text. > > I'll admit that I'd be totally happy with the GAP license or (given > growing frustrations) the WTFPL as a license for ietf documents or as > large a subset of IETF documents as we can get. So, I'm not really > bothered by options that some might view as inconsistent, provided that > > 1) I don't have to use them > > 2) If someone else uses them and I'm using their code I can go change > it to something reasonable. Simon Josefsson <si...@josefsson.org> writes: > Sam Hartman <hartmans-i...@mit.edu> writes: > >> Simon, I appreciate your concern about the BSD license. >> >> However, I'm not entirely sure why it matters. >> >> There are apparently some lawyers out there who believe the pointer >> approach is reasonable. What's the harm in the trust permitting this? > > I haven't seen any references to lawyers that believe redistributing > others BSD works and replacing the BSD license with a pointer is OK -- > do you have any links? > > The BSD license has peculiar wordings here ("Redistributions in binary > form must reproduce ... this list of conditions ... in the documentation > and/or other materials provided with the distribution"), so a general > opinion about replacing licenses with a pointer would not apply as far > as I can tell. > > If there are lawyers that really do believe the situation wrt BSD is OK, > I'm fine with the trust allowing either case. I'm basing my opinion on > the assumption that there aren't any. > >> If your legal advice suggests that using that option would produce >> inconsistent results, then you can simply include the full text. > > I couldn't if I receive the derived work from someone that didn't > include the entire BSD license. > >> I'll admit that I'd be totally happy with the GAP license or (given >> growing frustrations) the WTFPL as a license for ietf documents or as >> large a subset of IETF documents as we can get. So, I'm not really >> bothered by options that some might view as inconsistent, provided that >> >> 1) I don't have to use them > > Me too. > >> 2) If someone else uses them and I'm using their code I can go change >> it to something reasonable. > > I'm not sure you could do that in this situation. You received their > code under a license that points to some document for the BSD lciense, > and that document does not allow you to change the license of that > derived work. So you are struck with the IETF pointer license. > > /Simon Sam Hartman <hartmans-i...@mit.edu> writes: > Simon, thanks for explaining your concern. I agree that if I cannot > replace the poinrter with the full text of the BSD license, then the > trust language is problematic. > > I'd suggest that allowing this replacement might be an easy way to > make progress. > > Although I seem to have written to you individually, which is not my > intent. If you think it would be beneficial, feel free to forward our > conversation to a wider audience. > Hmm, perhaps I should have added code begin and code end tags to this IETF > contribution:-) _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf