On Thursday, 8 December 2016 21:42:29 UTC, Jakob Bohm wrote: > This could easily conflict with other legal obligations, such as > requirements to license said documents under a specific other license. > > It would be more realistic to add wording which simply requires the > specific things that Mozilla, Relying parties, Subscribers and other > interested parties (such as the participants in this group) should be > allowed to do with those documents
I am sympathetic to this argument, on the other hand, it would seem extraordinary to me if a would-be public Certificate Authority is unwilling to accept Gerv's last "considered as permission" outcome. If a CA is obliged to, for example, add some particular government license, or a license chosen by another trust store then sure, they can't instead choose a CC license. But that also gives them no reason to be hostile to the idea of Mozilla treating their application as permission to handle it under CC-BY-ND. A reason to like Gerv's approach is that we're content CC-BY-ND does what we actually want. An explicit list of requirements is subject to lawyer weaselling e.g. maybe we say Mozilla's users must be able to quote the CPS to pass comment on it, and some lawyer somewhere decides they can meet that requirement by demanding any users submit their proposed comment on paper to the lawyers and wait up 60 working days for permission which "shall not unreasonably be withheld"... thereby meeting the letter of the rules but destroying the spirit. _______________________________________________ dev-security-policy mailing list dev-security-policy@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-security-policy
