Re: Proposed license for IETF Contributions
"Joe Smith" <email@example.com> writes:
> 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.
That reads better, although I made some minor changes. The new
This specifically implies, for instance,
that redistributed modified works must not claim
endorsement of the modified work 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 you are thinking of "i.e." here. "e.g." means more or less
> 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."