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

Re: Proposed license for IETF Contributions




"Simon Josefsson" <jas@extundo.com> wrote in message iluhdaam1hc.fsf@latte.josefsson.org">news:iluhdaam1hc.fsf@latte.josefsson.org...
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
IETF.
Ok.

s/specifically imply/specifically implies/
s/Internet Standard/an Internet Standard/

I would also personally change the important sentance to this (changes marked by *'s):

 This specifically *implies* that *a modified version*
must *not claim endorsement of the modified version* by the IETF, IESG, IANA, IAB, ISOC, RFC Editor, *or any* similar *organization* and remove any claims of status as
  *an* Internet Standard, e.g., by removing the RFC boilerplate.

Iwould also rethink the use of e.g. which most closely means 'that is'. It indicates a restatement
rather than an example.

I think it is accecptable to allow the modified versions to say something like the following, which the original
appears to disallow.
"This document is based on the IETF Internet Standard RFCXXXX, although this version is not offical."



Reply to: