Re: Section 5.2 (IPR encumberance) in TAK rollover requirement draft

[Paul Vixie <paul@vix.com>]

# Hoping to direct the conversation to its most salient points ...

imho, this isn't one (a salient point).

# > what matters to ISC is that we have to be able to publish reference
# > implementations of the DNS protocol under a BSD-style copyright.
# 
# What's the source of this requirement on ISC?

in 1994 rick adams (then president of uunet) handed me a check to found isc
and he said "none of that gnu public virus crap, got it?"  i got it.  every
dollar/yen/yuan/mark/franc/euro/ruble/etc we've taken in since that time
(including yours, hilarie, while at DoD) was with the understanding that all
funded work would be released under a BSD-style license.  that's what the
board believed when they signed on, it's what our occasional grant funding
angels believe, it's what much of our staff believes, it's what several large
BIND Forum members believe, and of course it's what i believe, and is part
of the "why paul vixie is at ISC at all" equation.  but none of that matters.

# > TAKREM would require that we switch to a GPL-style copyright, which we
# > will not do.
# 
# I think someone from Verisign said the same thing a few months ago.
# Why won't ISC adopt GPL?

because it's far too restrictive.  before we continue, and before anyone
else jumps in, please realize three things: (1) you probably have not read
both licenses and you really should, and (2) this is religion and politics
and economics, not technology, and (3) this topic is about ISC not DNS, and
only ISC's relevance to DNS is on-topic here -- not ISC's licensing religion.

--
to unsubscribe send a message to namedroppers-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>