On 08/12/16 11:41, Jakob Bohm wrote: > This could easily conflict with other legal obligations, such as > requirements to license said documents under a specific other license.
I don't think so; nothing prevents a CA providing multiple potential sets of license terms for a document. > It would be more realistic ....and longer and more complicated and more prone to error... > It is in particular noted that these things are a lot less than what > any of the regular CC licenses permit. For example, Mozilla has no > reason to require that other CA operators be permitted to reuse the > documents as their own, even though such other CA operators are > encouraged to participate in the permitted activities, such as publicly > talking about the practices of their competitor. Well, if they want to become a CA without any ability to change their CP and CPS, and with every other page of it branded with the brand of competitor... That seems somewhat unlikely. The default license Mozilla is planning to assume in absence of anything else is an ND license, which means No Derivatives. So it seems unlikely to me that some CA would go into operation with another CA's unmodified documents. And if they did, they'd be BR-noncompliant within a year, as the BRs require a yearly update to those documents. Gerv _______________________________________________ dev-security-policy mailing list dev-security-policy@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-security-policy
