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

Re: licensing of XMPP specifications

MJ Ray wrote:
Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
[...] Unless separate permission is granted, modified works that are redistributed shall not contain misleading information regarding the authors, title, number, or publisher of the Specification, and shall not claim endorsement of the modified works by the authors, any organization or project to which the authors belong, or the XMPP Standards Foundation.

IPR Conformance

This XMPP Extension Protocol has been contributed 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).

I think you should make it clearer that the IPR Conformance section
is not part of the copyright or permission notice and does not need
to be (must not be? I'm confused about it) retained in modified works.
I suggest moving it after the Warranty, after some *s or -s and putting a
note by it, telling developers what to do.  I know it should be obvious
what to do with it, but I've seen simpler things got wrong before (CC
trademark terms).

Yes, I did that in my working copy right after I sent the email message containing the proposed text.

About Specification - I'm not bothered about that wording.  I don't think
the arguments against using MIT/Expat hold water and I'm very unhappy
about XSF making a new licence, but at least work under this license
could follow the DFSG.

That's my highest priority here, followed by meeting the needs of the XSF's "customers" (developers and service providers).

About license proliferation, several years ago the XSF (then the JSF, long story) proactively asked OSI to obsolete the old "Jabber Open Source License", so we've done our part on that score. :)

The copyright when XSF license it is covering
a specification and if a modified work is something else, that doesn't
change the nature of what your copyright was, as far as I can tell.
It would just add other copyright interests.


About CAPITALS - the judge in the US case of Stevenson v. TRW Inc.,
987 F.2d 288, 296 (5th Cir. 1993) has goofed.  It's well-known that
large areas of capitals are harder to read than mixed case, so putting a
warranty notice all in capitals is a way to make it *less* conspicuous,
reducing the number of people who read it.  To play safe, I'd put the
header in capitals, with *s and stuff around it, so it's conspicuous
by that stupid definition, but leave the disclaimer itself in mixed
case, so people will actually read it.
See http://www.tc-forum.org/topicus/ru28theu.htm

Thanks and good luck,

Perhaps bold text will help. I'll play around with the formatting somewhat. The license will appear only in HTML files, not ASCII as I've pasted here, so we have some leeway about formatting.


Peter Saint-Andre

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Reply to: