[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: license of schema files



On Tue, Apr 04, 2006 at 09:51:51PM +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote:
> Noèl Köthe <noel@debian.org> writes:

> > Hello debian-legal and openldap maintainers,

> > the upstream kolabd package includes rfc2739.schema:

> > http://kolab.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs-kolab.cgi/server/kolabd/kolabd/rfc2739.schema?rev=1.1.1.1&content-type=text/vnd.viewcvs-markup

> > kolabd was rejected by ftpmaster because of this schema license text
> > (this schema is now removed but it would be better to get it included
> > again):

> > ...
> > However, this
> > #  document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
> > #  the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
> > #  Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
> > #  developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
> > #  copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
> > #  followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
> > #  English.
> > ...

> > "document itself may not be modified in any way" is the main point. The
> > following are examples and more information. It looks like its just a
> > copy of a RFC license e.g. ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc2821.txt

> IMHO permission to modify standards is uninteresting.  The document is
> only useful in it's original form anyway.

Schema files are *not* documentation.  They are functional components of the
LDAP server.

This is a nice example of why the current IETF licensing is broken.

OTOH, if the schema file is reduced to only those non-creative parts (i.e.,
comments stripped, normalized case, sorted), I'm not sure copyright would
still apply.

-- 
Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
vorlon@debian.org                                   http://www.debian.org/

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: