Re: Effort to change IETF's copying conditions for RFCs
Florian Weimer <email@example.com> writes:
> * Simon Josefsson:
>>> I think you might get broader support in the vendor community if you
>>> make the license for modified copying non-copyleft.
>> Yes, that is the intention. Requiring a copyleft license is likely to
>> meet with disapproval from too many people, for various reasons.
> But isn't the "this notice [...] preserved" part problematic?
Yes, I suppose you are right. I have changed the license into:
The Contributor grants third parties the right to
copy and distribute the Contribution, with or without
modification, in any medium, without royalty. If the
Contribution is modified, any claims of endorsement or
official status by the IETF or ISOC must be removed.
Is that ok? Any other comments?
> | The Contributor grants third parties the right to copy and distribute
> | the Contribution, with or without modification, in any medium,
> | without royalty, provided that the copyright notice and this notice
> | are preserved, and that any claims of being the authorative RFC are
> | removed.