Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Simon Josefsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Also, RFCs with the new license doesn't include the license template
>> itself, it just reference BCP 78. So if BCP 78 is updated, perhaps it
>> automatically apply to RFCs that simply reference BC
Simon Josefsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Also, RFCs with the new license doesn't include the license template
> itself, it just reference BCP 78. So if BCP 78 is updated, perhaps it
> automatically apply to RFCs that simply reference BCP 78. I doubt the
> legality of that too.
Is that comp
John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Simon Josefsson writes:
>> Is that license acceptable to the Debian community?
>
> Looks fine to me. Is it going to be retroactive?
It is a good question. The RFC Editor has claimed that the RFC 2026
license apply to older RFCs too, in particular RFC 15
Scripsit Simon Josefsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I received some feedback from the IPR WG, resulting in this wording:
> The Contributor grants third parties the right to
> copy and distribute the Contribution, with or without
> modification, in any medium, without royalty. The
Simon Josefsson writes:
> Is that license acceptable to the Debian community?
Looks fine to me. Is it going to be retroactive?
--
John Hasler
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Simon Josefsson:
> I received some feedback from the IPR WG, resulting in this wording:
>
> The Contributor grants third parties the right to
> copy and distribute the Contribution, with or without
> modification, in any medium, without royalty. The IETF
> requests tha
Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Peter Samuelson:
>
>>> * Simon Josefsson:
>>> > The Contributor grants third parties the right to
>>> > copy and distribute the Contribution, with or without
>>> > modification, in any medium, without royalty. If the
>>> > Contribution
* Peter Samuelson:
>> * Simon Josefsson:
>> > The Contributor grants third parties the right to
>> >copy and distribute the Contribution, with or without
>> >modification, in any medium, without royalty. If the
>> >Contribution is modified, any claims of endorsement or
>> >
> * Simon Josefsson:
> > The Contributor grants third parties the right to
> > copy and distribute the Contribution, with or without
> > modification, in any medium, without royalty. If the
> > Contribution is modified, any claims of endorsement or
> > official status by t
Florian Weimer writes:
> IOW, preserve the copyright statement, but not the entire notice.
What's wrong with preserving the entire notice?
--
John Hasler
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Simon Josefsson:
>> But isn't the "this notice [...] preserved" part problematic?
>
> Yes, I suppose you are right. I have changed the license into:
>
> The Contributor grants third parties the right to
> copy and distribute the Contribution, with or without
> modification,
Simon Josefsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Yes, I suppose you are right. I have changed the license into:
>
> The Contributor grants third parties the right to
> copy and distribute the Contribution, with or without
> modification, in any medium, without royalty. If the
>
Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Simon Josefsson:
>
>>> I think you might get broader support in the vendor community if you
>>> make the license for modified copying non-copyleft.
>>
>> Yes, that is the intention. Requiring a copyleft license is likely to
>> meet with disapproval f
Hello!
On Fri 07 Oct 2005 10:30 +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Wesley J Landaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> On Thursday 06 October 2005 06:57, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>>
I know the copying conditions of IETF RFC's has been a concern
for
Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Simon Josefsson:
>
>>> I think you might get broader support in the vendor community if you
>>> make the license for modified copying non-copyleft.
>>
>> Yes, that is the intention. Requiring a copyleft license is likely to
>> meet with disapproval fr
* Simon Josefsson:
>> I think you might get broader support in the vendor community if you
>> make the license for modified copying non-copyleft.
>
> Yes, that is the intention. Requiring a copyleft license is likely to
> meet with disapproval from too many people, for various reasons.
But isn't
Paul TBBle Hampson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 11:16:03PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> On Thu, 06 Oct 2005, Russ Allbery wrote:
>
Unlimited distribution isn't the problem. Modification and
redistribut
Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Wesley J Landaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> On Thursday 06 October 2005 06:57, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>
>>> I know the copying conditions of IETF RFC's has been a concern for
>>> Debian in the past, and that the RFCs has been removed from the
>>> off
Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Simon Josefsson:
>
>> I explain the current problems, and I try to put together a proposed
>> update, and I have a petition online at:
>>
>> http://josefsson.org/bcp78broken/
>
> Very nice, thanks.
>
> I think you might get broader support in the vend
On Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 11:16:03PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> On Thu, 06 Oct 2005, Russ Allbery wrote:
>>> Unlimited distribution isn't the problem. Modification and
>>> redistribution of modified versions is the problem, and that
>>> r
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, 06 Oct 2005, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Unlimited distribution isn't the problem. Modification and
>> redistribution of modified versions is the problem, and that
>> restriction was apparently
> If the IETF allows modified versions th
On Thu, 06 Oct 2005, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Unlimited distribution isn't the problem. Modification and redistribution
> of modified versions is the problem, and that restriction was apparently
If the IETF allows modified versions that are *RENAMED*, then it would meet
the DFSG. They can even rest
Wesley J Landaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thursday 06 October 2005 06:57, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>> I know the copying conditions of IETF RFC's has been a concern for
>> Debian in the past, and that the RFCs has been removed from the
>> official archive (?),
If they haven't been yet, the
On Thursday 06 October 2005 06:57, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> Hi everyone!
>
> I know the copying conditions of IETF RFC's has been a concern for
> Debian in the past, and that the RFCs has been removed from the
> official archive (?), so I thought this would be of some interest to
> you. I am tryin
* Simon Josefsson:
> I explain the current problems, and I try to put together a proposed
> update, and I have a petition online at:
>
> http://josefsson.org/bcp78broken/
Very nice, thanks.
I think you might get broader support in the vendor community if you
make the license for modified copying
Hi everyone!
I know the copying conditions of IETF RFC's has been a concern for
Debian in the past, and that the RFCs has been removed from the
official archive (?), so I thought this would be of some interest to
you. I am trying to influence the IETF to change the copying
conditions on RFCs to m
26 matches
Mail list logo
