Re: Proposed license for IETF Contributions
Nathanael Nerode <email@example.com> writes:
>> 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,
> That means the IETF people like it? :-)
That is not clear. I'll continue to attempt to persuade people until
the WG has decided that aligning with free software requirements is a
non-goal, or a useful license has been accepted.
>> 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
> You probably want to write "....misleading author, version, name of work, or
> endorsement information", given the following sentences, because being
> endorsed by the IETF, being RFC 3030, or being an Internet Standard aren't
> exactly author or version information, but I think they are either
> endorsement information or the name of the work.
> Yes, that's technically more restrictive. Yes, it's just as free. :-)
> I suspect if anything the IETF will welcome that change to the license!
I agree, and have incorporated this.
> I'm not sure about my suggested "name of work" phrase; it's clunky, anyone
> got anything better?
I agree it sounds strange, but I can't think of a better term.
>> specifically imply, for instance, that redistributed
> ^^^^^ "implies"
>> 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.
> ^^ "an" Internet Standard
>> 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.
> It's 100% acceptable. Two tiny grammar errors pointed out, as well as a
> place where it could safely be made *more* restrictive and probably capture
> the meaning better.
I fixed the grammar errors, thanks!
>> References to similar accepted licenses would be useful.
> Oddly enough, this is actually substantially better than most such licenses,
> so I kind of don't want to make such a reference.
They may be useful in the IPR WG discussion, but I have mentioned two
examples already. If people want to continue to discuss them, I'll
try to find more. It seem simple to find more examples.