Subject: [TOOLS-DEVELOPMENT] Please review text about licenses

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 16:33:37 -0400

During the AMS + IETF Leadership meeting earlier this month, there was a
discussion of licenses on volunteer-developed code for things other than
the Datatracker.  I'm proposing some text for the tools wiki:

   Volunteers working on tools other than the Datatracker can use
   libraries with any license that the wish.  That said, we strongly
   prefer libraries with no end user loyalty.  If there is a strong
   possibility that the resulting tool will become critical to the IETF
   community, then there is a very strong preference for the BSD license
   since that is used in so many of the tools that are maintained by the
   IETF community.  Critical code that uses a license other than the BSD
   license will be considered on a case-by-case exceptional basis.

Please review and comment.

Russ

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 10:31:42 +0200

Hi Russ,

>    libraries with any license that the wish.  That said, we strongly
s/the wish/they wish/

>    prefer libraries with no end user loyalty.  If there is a strong
s/loyalty/royalty/ ?

> Please review and comment.

Overall:  

* There are 2 BSD licenses in common use, the 2-clause and the
  3-clause.  The license used in the IETF Trust Legal Provisions is the
  3-clause license.  To cover both, maybe say 'a BSD license' instead of
  'the BSD license'.

* The text seems to talk about license on the created code and
  license on libraries used by that code in an intermingled manner.  Maybe
  separate out the two, and talk about each more explicitly?

Proposal:

   Volunteers working on tools other than the Datatracker can use any
   license for the code that they wish, and use libraries with any
   license that they wish.  That said, we strongly prefer libraries with
   no end user royalty.  If there is a strong possibility that the
   resulting tool will become critical to the IETF community, then there
   is a very strong preference that the tool is licensed under a BSD
   license since the BSD 3-clause license[1] is used in so many of the
   tools that are maintained by the IETF community, and that any
   libraries it calls are compatible with the tool being licensed under
   a BSD license.  Critical code that uses a license other than a BSD
   license will be considered on a case-by-case exceptional basis.

   [1] https://opensource.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause

Best regards,

	Henrik

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 07:06:25 -0400

Should you also include the MIT license?  Our lawyers have us use that because there is no ambiguity with versions and it matches one of the BSD licenses, probably the one Henrik is recommending.

Kathleen 

Sent from my iPhone

> On May 25, 2016, at 4:31 AM, Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Russ,
> 
> _______________________________________________
> TOOLS-DEVELOPMENT mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-development

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 14:29:48 +0200

On 2016-05-25 13:06, [email-masked] wrote:
> Should you also include the MIT license? Our lawyers have us use that
> because there is no ambiguity with versions and it matches one of the
> BSD licenses, probably the one Henrik is recommending.

They are similar, but the MIT licence[2] is more open, and doesn't have the
endorsement or promotion restriction which the 3-clause BSD has.  I think
it's in the interest of the IETF to have such a clause.  I'd recommend
staying with the 3-clause BSD as the recommended license for IETF tools.

[2] https://opensource.org/licenses/MIT

	Henrik

---

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 11:34:49 -0400

Thanks for the significant improvements.

Russ

---

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 12:03:58 -0400

>   [1] https://opensource.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause

Where on the wiki do you think this should appear?

Russ

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 22:34:50 +0200

> Where on the wiki do you think this should appear?

How about 

  https://wiki.tools.ietf.org/tools/ietfdb/wiki/LicensingPreferences

with links from

  https://wiki.tools.ietf.org/tools/ietfdb/wiki/
  https://www.ietf.org/tools/tools.html
  https://www.ietf.org/tools/
  https://tools.ietf.org/

?

	Henrik

---

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 16:42:41 -0400

>  https://www.ietf.org/tools/

Henrik::

That looks great.  Thanks.

Alexa:

Can you put that text on the suggested locations on www.ietf.org/tools/?

Thanks,
Russ

---

From: Alexa Morris <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 May 2016 09:37:49 -0700

Russ, 

Yes, we will post the text on www.ietf.org/tools/. Thanks for closing on this.

Alexa

> Can you put that text on the suggested locations on www.ietf.org/tools/?

----------
Alexa Morris / Executive Director / IETF
48377 Fremont Blvd., Suite 117, Fremont, CA  94538
Phone: +1.510.492.4089 / Fax: +1.510.492.4001
Email: [email-masked]

Managed by Association Management Solutions (AMS)
Forum Management, Meeting and Event Planning
www.amsl.com <http://www.amsl.com/>