I saw Steve Lay’s post about his assumption that the license under which the draft was made available would still allow implementers to continue to use and distribute the 2.1 work. However, as I understand it, that license would prevent derivative works, so maintenance and additions to the 2.1 work independent of IMS would be blocked. Is that correct?

It occurs to me that many standards implementers and stakeholders don’t look at these “fine print” issues prospectively, but they should. I’ve made a couple recent posts to my blog about the need for more uniform, permissive licensing by consortia. As my posts point out, the number and variety open sources software licenses can be a source of much consternation. However, we’re approaching a point where there is more certainty regarding rights under OSS licenses than the licenses granted by consortia and standards orgs. The latter tend to be like snowflakes in that no two are the same.