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

Proposed license for IETF Contributions

Hi all.  I have discussed an issue with IETF's copying conditions on
debian-devel before, and got several supporters.  My effort to change
the copying conditions in IETF has resulted in an updated version of
my proposed legal license, and I want to check with this community
whether this proposed license would be acceptable to the Debian
community.  I have made changes to it recently, and want your input.

My goal is to propose a license that would be acceptable to the Debian
community and the FreeBSD community, but also be acceptable to the

This is discussed at:

You should think about whether the following permit two things:

  1) Include official IETF RFCs released under this license in Debian

  2) Include excerpts of RFCs into software and manuals in other
     packages in Debian.

My proposed license is:

    c.  The Contributor grants third parties the irrevocable
        right to copy, use and distribute the Contribution, with
        or without modification, in any medium, without royalty,
        provided that redistributed modified works do not contain
        misleading author or version information.  This
        specifically imply, for instance, that redistributed
        modified works must remove any references to endorsement
        by the IETF, IESG, IANA, IAB, ISOC, RFC Editor, and
        similar organizations and remove any claims of status as
        Internet Standard, e.g., by removing the RFC boilerplate.
        The IETF requests that any citation or excerpt of
        unmodified text reference the RFC or other document from
        which the text is derived.

This is still a strawman.  I want to vet it by wide review.

Note that several accepted licenses in Debian place requirements that
appear to be similar as the above, in that they require that modified
versions be labeled as such and that you can no longer claim it is the
official version.  That is the goal with the text.  If the text is
badly worded, please suggest an alternative.

References to similar accepted licenses would be useful.

Comments or suggestions?


Reply to: