It has been brought to my attention that the current licensing of the
protocol specifications produced by the XMPP Standards Foundation (XSF)
is not in compliance with the Debian Free Software Guidelines (DFSG).
The specifications in question, called XMPP Extension Protocols (XEPs),
define the protocols used by a wide variety of Jabber software
implementations (servers, libraries, clients, etc.). Some of these
implementations may be licensed such that their code complies with the
DFSG. However, if such implementations wish to include XEPs or
substantial portions thereof in their distributions, then the current
XEP licensing will prevent the software from being included in free
Debian distributions. This is sub-optimal (especially because the
jabber.org/xmpp.org infrastructure is hosted on server machines that run
Debian!). Therefore we want to make sure that the XEP licensing is in
compliance with the DFSG.
The specifications are covered by the XSF's IPR policy:
http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/ipr-policy.shtml
From 2002 to 2005 these specifications were licensed under the Open
Publication License (OPL). In 2005 we changed the licensing to use the
Creative Commons Attribution License (CC-BY) because it appeared that
the OPL was not being maintained. However, I now realize that CC-BY is
considered to violate the DFSG. (Sorry, I have not followed the
long-running controversy over CC licenses and the DFSG, although I have
done some cursory research into the matter today.)
As Executive Director of the XSF, I am willing to push for a change to
the licensing so that the XEP licensing is consistent with the DFSG.
Although we need to complete some due diligence and come to consensus in
our community before settling on a license, it appears to me that the
MIT license would be appropriate. (If it were up to me I would place the
documents in the public domain, but that may not be consistent with the
consensus of our community or the XSF's intended role as a neutral third
party and intellectual property conservancy for Jabber/XMPP protocols.)
However, the MIT license talks about software, not documentation or,
more precisely in our case, protocol specifications. Is it considered
acceptable (for the purpose of DFSG compliance) to formulate a legal
notice that is nearly identical to the MIT license but that talks about
specifications instead of software?
I am thinking of a legal notice along the following lines...
******
This XMPP Extension Protocol is copyright (c) 1999 - 2007 by the XMPP
Standards Foundation (XSF) and is in full conformance with the XSF's
Intellectual Property Rights Policy (a copy of which may be found at
http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/ipr-policy.shtml or obtained by writing
to XSF, P.O. Box 1641, Denver, CO 80201 USA). Permission is hereby
granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this
specification (the "Specification"), to make use of the Specification
without restriction, including without limitation the rights to
implement the Specification in code and to read, copy, modify, merge,
publish, translate, distribute, sublicense, or sell copies of the
Specification, and to permit persons to whom the Specification is
furnished to do so, subject to the condition that this copyright notice
and permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial
portions of the Specification. THE SPECIFICATION IS PROVIDED "AS IS",
WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT
LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR
PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT
HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR, OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN
AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF, OR IN
CONNECTION WITH THE SPECIFICATION OR THE IMPLEMENTATION OR OTHER USE OF
THE SPECIFICATION.
******