Subject: [Hipsec] HIP for *BSD release

From: [email-masked] (Jan Mikael Melen)
Date: Tue Dec 9 03:29:00 2003

=2D----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi!

Our first HIP release is now available at:=20
http://www.hip4inter.net/download.shtml

Currently it is a patch file that can be applied on FreeBSD 5.1-p10 sources.

  B.R. HIP for *BSD team

=2D --=20
Jan M. Mel=E9n
Research Scientist
NomadicLab, IP Networks
Ericsson Research

Oy LM Ericsson Ab
Telecom R&D
Tel: +358 9 299 3056
=46ax: +358 9 299 2448
Mobile: +358 400 83 6926
[email-masked]
http://www.ericsson.com
=2D----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQE/1Y/mp4iklvjQtTgRApoNAKC2Gnl3EMf50INa5DyTRrd6S3urjQCghZxa
bR7j8v3e4eGVDMnjrzqg9mo=3D
=3DteKA
=2D----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

---

From: [email-masked] (Tim Shepard)
Date: Tue Dec 9 09:29:00 2003

> Currently it is a patch file that can be applied on FreeBSD 5.1-p10 sources.

This is great, and I know that some of you have worked very hard and
very long to make this happen.

Unfortunately, the license appears to be new (is not one of the 47
licenses already recognized by opensource.org), and it is going to
take a while to understand it.  It would help me (and I expect others)
if you would explain why it was necessary to reject the 47 licenses
already recognized by opensource.org and develop yet another.  In
particular, do you believe you could (and is it perhaps your intent
to) get this license approved using the opensource.org certification
process?  (See http://opensource.org/docs/certification_mark.php ).

			-Tim Shepard
			 [email-masked]

---

From: [email-masked] (Pekka Nikander)
Date: Tue Dec 9 11:27:01 2003

Tim,

On Dec 9, 2003, at 17:03, Tim Shepard wrote:
> already recognized by opensource.org and develop yet another.

I didn't follow the process too closely, and therefore I may be
missing something.  However, my understanding is that GPL or the
other "free" licenses were felt inappropriate.  It might have been
possible to use any of the Mozilla/Apple/Nokia/etc licenses
other than that there might have been IPR and public relationship
issues about using the license itself.  That is, not about the
conditions in the license but the intellectual property (copyright)
possibly applied to the actual license text itself, and/or the
publicity issues created if Ericsson would have used a license
that carries the name of another corporation.

Hence, my understanding is that the local lawyers felt that creating
a new license is the "safest" way, for Ericsson Finland, to avoid
possible problems with existing licenses.  We know very well that
this is a problem from the open source community point of view, but
it has been hard enough for us to get a permission to publish the
code in the first place.

> In particular, do you believe you could (and is it perhaps your intent

The intention was and is that the license would be compatible with
the OSI open source license approval criteria.  However, at this
time there are no concrete plans to apply for approval.  On the
other hand, Ericsson is working on its open source strategy on the
corporate level, and it is possible that we might get an OSI approved
corporate wide open source license at some point of time (but don't
hold your breath).  If we get one, we will almost certainly change the
licensing to use such a license.

--Pekka Nikander