On Tue, Sep 04, 2001 at 02:05:00AM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote: > It might be worth going back to Internet Society and asking if the > qualification on derivative works is intended to be operative or > informative. Remember you are dealing with a group that uses the term > request for comments to cover anything from reports of network outages > many years ago to the Internet protocol itself. I might be able to > make an argument that the set of things that could be a comment on an > RFC is broad enough to cover all derivative works. Certainly, if the > copyright holder intends this interpretation the license is fine. I agree; if we can get an official statement to this effect from the Internet Society that we can provide in the debian/copyright file, I'll withdraw my objection to this license. What I don't want to see is us accepting this license without any additional clarification into main, and then have someone come along with a license like this: "You're free to copy, distribute, and create derived works of my code, except you're not allowed to make modifications to support vi, because I hate that editor and you should be using Emacs instead." And pointing to our acceptance of the Internet Society's RFC license as precedent. [Anyone who thinks that people don't try crazy stuff like this in software licenses hasn't read enough of them. See, for instance, openssl.] -- G. Branden Robinson | Convictions are more dangerous Debian GNU/Linux | enemies of truth than lies. branden@debian.org | -- Friedrich Nietzsche http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |
Attachment:
pgpyQturr4ymZ.pgp
Description: PGP signature