Re: [Standards] XEP licensing
On 10/22/07, Remko Tronçon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Why would they want to modify RFCs? To "embrace and extend"? (and extinguish) -- Nicolas Vérité (Nÿco) mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Jabber ID : xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://linuxfr.org/ - http://fr.wikipedia.org/ - http://www.jabberfr.org/
Re: [Standards] XEP licensing
Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > It has been brought to my attention that the current licensing of the > XEP documents is not acceptable to Debian, with the result that XEPs > (and probably even parts thereof) cannot be included in Debian-based > distributions. I will ask about this on the debian-legal list and report > back with my findings. It is possible that version 3 of the Creative Commons Attribution license may be acceptable to the Debian team: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/10/msg00059.html (scroll down) Further research required. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: [Standards] XEP licensing
Remko Tronçon wrote: >> IIRC, the problem was that >> the license doesn't allow one to redistribute modified RFCs. > > Why would they want to modify RFCs? Many things might count as "modification": - translation into a language other than English - condensation (e.g., remove all the text and just show the examples) - inclusion of significant portions in software (think literate programming) - recording / performance (yes, I know, there's probably not a big market for recordings or performances of RFCs) - etc. See also: http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.html Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: [Standards] XEP licensing
Dave Cridland wrote: > On Mon Oct 22 17:02:55 2007, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: >> Not since RFC 3978 was published. Details here: >> >> http://josefsson.org/bcp78broken/ > > I think some of this is out of date, actually Quite possibly. I provided that link as an illustration. If people really care about this issue w.r.t. the IETF, they can join the IPR WG discussion list and read the -outgoing and -incoming I-Ds. > The situation with RFCs is made more complex because the IETF [Trust] > does not own the copyright on the RFCs, whereas the XSF does. (Or at > least, it thinks people have assigned it copyright by the action of > submitting the XEP). Some XEPs have been explicitly contributed (e.g., XEP-0204). And I always verify with spec authors that they agree to the IPR Policy when they contribute a proposal. That task is made a bit easier given that I author 80% of the specs. :) > This means that the IETF Trust merely has to work within the rights it > has been licensed, whereas the XSF can wholesale relicense its XEPs > utterly. Right. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: [Standards] XEP licensing
On Mon, 22 Oct 2007, Remko Tronçon wrote: > > Why would they want to modify RFCs? The canonical examples are protocol implementations that quote extensively from the RFC in comments next to the corresponding code, or marked-up versions of the RFC with hyperlinks. Tony. -- f.a.n.finch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://dotat.at/ SOUTHEAST ICELAND: NORTHERLY 5 AT FIRST IN EAST, OTHERWISE SOUTHEASTERLY 4 OR 5 INCREASING 6 OR 7. MODERATE OR ROUGH. RAIN LATER. GOOD, OCCASIONALLY MODERATE LATER.
Re: [Standards] XEP licensing
On Mon Oct 22 17:02:55 2007, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: Not since RFC 3978 was published. Details here: http://josefsson.org/bcp78broken/ I think some of this is out of date, actually - the IETF Trust does state, quite clearly (although informally) that many of these rights are in fact granted. There was a long and rather dull thread involving Simon, myself, and others about this on the IETF list, although I'm not sure that Simon was convinced, although I think he was partly convinced. It's further complicated by the fact that some code present in RFCs is licensed explicitly within the RFCs, even though it's licensed implicitly because it's an RFC as well. Which probably goes to show how carefully people think about these things. :-) I don't think anyone disagrees that the various theoretical use-cases Simon has there shouldn't be legal, it's more that many people think they already are, and don't want the (severe) headache of trying to change the text - there's a large body of people who have to be generally convinced it's worthwhile, and currently that's simply not the case. The situation with RFCs is made more complex because the IETF [Trust] does not own the copyright on the RFCs, whereas the XSF does. (Or at least, it thinks people have assigned it copyright by the action of submitting the XEP). This means that the IETF Trust merely has to work within the rights it has been licensed, whereas the XSF can wholesale relicense its XEPs utterly. Dave. -- Dave Cridland - mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - acap://acap.dave.cridland.net/byowner/user/dwd/bookmarks/ - http://dave.cridland.net/ Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade
Re: [Standards] XEP licensing
Justin Karneges wrote: > On Friday 19 October 2007 1:22 pm, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: >> It has been brought to my attention that the current licensing of the >> XEP documents is not acceptable to Debian, with the result that XEPs >> (and probably even parts thereof) cannot be included in Debian-based >> distributions. I will ask about this on the debian-legal list and report >> back with my findings. > > How are RFCs licensed? I always thought the XSF policy was very similar to > the IETF's. Can Debian ship RFCs? Not since RFC 3978 was published. Details here: http://josefsson.org/bcp78broken/ Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: [Standards] XEP licensing
Thomas Charron wrote: > On 10/22/07, Richard Laager <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Mon, 2007-10-22 at 10:20 +0100, Dave Cridland wrote: >>> On Mon Oct 22 09:23:17 2007, Remko Tronçon wrote: > IIRC, the problem was that > the license doesn't allow one to redistribute modified RFCs. Why would they want to modify RFCs? >>> It's a principle of the thing with DFSG. I can understand their point >>> of view, but I don't think it's our job to adhere to their >>> requirements, either. >>> >>> We need to ensure that our licensing is correct for what we require. >>> If we can accomodate Debian, great, but I suspect we can't, and I'm >>> not too fussed anyway. >> Where's the *harm* in allowing people to redistribute derivative works? > > People possibly change the spec, and distribute it indistinguishable > from the original. Personally I don't worry about such theoretical concerns. The solution to such worries is to publish early and often at xmpp.org. /psa smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: [Standards] XEP licensing
On 10/22/07, Richard Laager <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, 2007-10-22 at 10:20 +0100, Dave Cridland wrote: > > On Mon Oct 22 09:23:17 2007, Remko Tronçon wrote: > > > > IIRC, the problem was that > > > > the license doesn't allow one to redistribute modified RFCs. > > > > > > Why would they want to modify RFCs? > > > > It's a principle of the thing with DFSG. I can understand their point > > of view, but I don't think it's our job to adhere to their > > requirements, either. > > > > We need to ensure that our licensing is correct for what we require. > > If we can accomodate Debian, great, but I suspect we can't, and I'm > > not too fussed anyway. > > Where's the *harm* in allowing people to redistribute derivative works? People possibly change the spec, and distribute it indistinguishable from the original. But then I suppose that could be taken care of by clarifying that the derivative must be clearly marked as such. -- -- Thomas
Re: [Standards] XEP licensing
Richard Laager wrote: > On Mon, 2007-10-22 at 10:20 +0100, Dave Cridland wrote: >> On Mon Oct 22 09:23:17 2007, Remko Tronçon wrote: IIRC, the problem was that the license doesn't allow one to redistribute modified RFCs. >>> Why would they want to modify RFCs? >> It's a principle of the thing with DFSG. I can understand their point >> of view, but I don't think it's our job to adhere to their >> requirements, either. >> >> We need to ensure that our licensing is correct for what we require. >> If we can accomodate Debian, great, but I suspect we can't, and I'm >> not too fussed anyway. > > Where's the *harm* in allowing people to redistribute derivative works? I don't see any. It is common knowledge who published the specifications in the first place (the XSF), so if people want to find the canonical source they know where to look. And BTW as far as I understand it, a translation would count as a derivative work. Indeed I would place the XEPs in the public domain if it were up to me, but it seems that (1) the concept of the public domain is not recognized in all countries and (2) exercising some form of copyright over the XEPs is more consistent with the XSF's role as an "intellectual property conservancy" (see the XSF's IPR policy for details). Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: [Standards] XEP licensing
On Mon, 2007-10-22 at 10:20 +0100, Dave Cridland wrote: > On Mon Oct 22 09:23:17 2007, Remko Tronçon wrote: > > > IIRC, the problem was that > > > the license doesn't allow one to redistribute modified RFCs. > > > > Why would they want to modify RFCs? > > It's a principle of the thing with DFSG. I can understand their point > of view, but I don't think it's our job to adhere to their > requirements, either. > > We need to ensure that our licensing is correct for what we require. > If we can accomodate Debian, great, but I suspect we can't, and I'm > not too fussed anyway. Where's the *harm* in allowing people to redistribute derivative works? Richard signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [Standards] XEP licensing
Dave Cridland schrieb: It's a principle of the thing with DFSG. I can understand their point of view, but I don't think it's our job to adhere to their requirements, either. We need to ensure that our licensing is correct for what we require. If we can accomodate Debian, great, but I suspect we can't, and I'm not too fussed anyway. i agree with Dave and Joe. Alex
Re: [Standards] XEP licensing
Hello On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 10:23:17AM +0200, Remko Tronçon wrote: > > IIRC, the problem was that > > the license doesn't allow one to redistribute modified RFCs. > > Why would they want to modify RFCs? It would be nice to be able to use some RFC as a base of some other document, but, of course, it could not be called the same RFC. Does the licence allow creating derived works? -- == This email has been checked by an automatic damage possibility check system. It can contain harmful instructions if read backwards. Internal checker ID: lacol.cr/cte/ << tlah ohce Michal 'vorner' Vaner pgp45Ag8aKGht.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [Standards] XEP licensing
On Mon Oct 22 09:23:17 2007, Remko Tronçon wrote: > IIRC, the problem was that > the license doesn't allow one to redistribute modified RFCs. Why would they want to modify RFCs? It's a principle of the thing with DFSG. I can understand their point of view, but I don't think it's our job to adhere to their requirements, either. We need to ensure that our licensing is correct for what we require. If we can accomodate Debian, great, but I suspect we can't, and I'm not too fussed anyway. Dave. -- Dave Cridland - mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - acap://acap.dave.cridland.net/byowner/user/dwd/bookmarks/ - http://dave.cridland.net/ Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade
Re: [Standards] XEP licensing
> IIRC, the problem was that > the license doesn't allow one to redistribute modified RFCs. Why would they want to modify RFCs? cheers, Remko
Re: [Standards] XEP licensing
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Oct 20, 2007, at 12:06 AM, Richard Laager wrote: How are RFCs licensed? I always thought the XSF policy was very similar to the IETF's. Can Debian ship RFCs? No. I remember removing one from EXTRA_DIST in an upstream project so that the maintainer of the corresponding Debian package wouldn't have to repackage our tarball after every release. IIRC, the problem was that the license doesn't allow one to redistribute modified RFCs. Maybe Debian should change *their* policy, then. If we change for them, what happens when some other people come along and tell us that the new license doesn't match their needs? - -- Joe Hildebrand -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (Darwin) iD8DBQFHHCXb5jZW0LU0IBwRAjsCAKCCMME1q1g3zY6QC2Kr/3g+tsOpEACfba2a sooucLspA8q5oTXouQqlEcA= =WMbt -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [Standards] XEP licensing
On Fri, 2007-10-19 at 16:56 -0700, Justin Karneges wrote: > On Friday 19 October 2007 1:22 pm, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > > It has been brought to my attention that the current licensing of the > > XEP documents is not acceptable to Debian, with the result that XEPs > > (and probably even parts thereof) cannot be included in Debian-based > > distributions. I will ask about this on the debian-legal list and report > > back with my findings. > > How are RFCs licensed? I always thought the XSF policy was very similar to > the IETF's. Can Debian ship RFCs? No. I remember removing one from EXTRA_DIST in an upstream project so that the maintainer of the corresponding Debian package wouldn't have to repackage our tarball after every release. IIRC, the problem was that the license doesn't allow one to redistribute modified RFCs. Richard signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [Standards] XEP licensing
On Friday 19 October 2007 1:22 pm, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > It has been brought to my attention that the current licensing of the > XEP documents is not acceptable to Debian, with the result that XEPs > (and probably even parts thereof) cannot be included in Debian-based > distributions. I will ask about this on the debian-legal list and report > back with my findings. How are RFCs licensed? I always thought the XSF policy was very similar to the IETF's. Can Debian ship RFCs? -Justin
[Standards] XEP licensing
It has been brought to my attention that the current licensing of the XEP documents is not acceptable to Debian, with the result that XEPs (and probably even parts thereof) cannot be included in Debian-based distributions. I will ask about this on the debian-legal list and report back with my findings. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
