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

Re: licensing of XMPP specifications



On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 10:29:54 -0700 Peter Saint-Andre wrote:

> MJ Ray wrote:
[...]
> > 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).

That is something I would again like to thank you for.

> 
> 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. :)

Well, you helped in deprecating a redundant license (-1), but now you
are proposing to introduce a new one (+1).
Since  -1 + 1 = 0  you are now about to nullify your previous good
deed.  That's why I'm trying to recommend you against this action!

[...]
> 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.

Please take into account that your license will likely be converted
into plain text by some redistributors (think about debian/copyright
files, e.g.).

My well-known disclaimers: IANAL, TINLA, IANADD, TINASOTODP.

-- 
 http://frx.netsons.org/progs/scripts/refresh-pubring.html
 New! Version 0.6 available! What? See for yourself!
..................................................... Francesco Poli .
 GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12  31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4

Attachment: pgpkpCK5_QJ7A.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: