Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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. Thanks. >> 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. Thanks, Simon -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
