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

Re: Proposed license for IETF Contributions

Nathanael Nerode <neroden@twcny.rr.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
>>      main.
> Yes.
>>   2) Include excerpts of RFCs into software and manuals in other
>>      packages in Debian.
> Yes.


>> 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.


Reply to: