Re: Policy 2.4 Proposal: Require open licensing of CPs and CPSes

2016-12-21 Thread Eric Mill
It's not a big deal. The important part is that there's flexibility for entities in novel legal situations to meet the intent of the policy, which this does. On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 12:38 AM, Jakob Bohm wrote: > On 16/12/2016 16:10, Gervase Markham wrote: > >> On 14/12/16

Re: Policy 2.4 Proposal: Require open licensing of CPs and CPSes

2016-12-21 Thread Gervase Markham
On 21/12/16 05:38, Jakob Bohm wrote: >> I'm not sure what you are getting at; m.d.s.p is "in writing", as is "in >> Bugzilla". I say "in writing" because I want to make sure some CA >> doesn't come back with "you said it was OK when we chatted at CAB >> Forum", or "you implied it was OK by

Re: Policy 2.4 Proposal: Require open licensing of CPs and CPSes

2016-12-20 Thread Jakob Bohm
On 16/12/2016 16:10, Gervase Markham wrote: On 14/12/16 23:13, Eric Mill wrote: Sure, that works. Is the "in writing" part necessary? You might say instead "publicly accepted by Mozilla.", which would imply text on m.d.s.p or bugzilla that would necessarily be in writing, while also ensuring

Re: Policy 2.4 Proposal: Require open licensing of CPs and CPSes

2016-12-16 Thread Gervase Markham
On 14/12/16 23:13, Eric Mill wrote: > Sure, that works. Is the "in writing" part necessary? You might say instead > "publicly accepted by Mozilla.", which would imply text on m.d.s.p or > bugzilla that would necessarily be in writing, while also ensuring better > visibility. I'm not sure what you

Re: Policy 2.4 Proposal: Require open licensing of CPs and CPSes

2016-12-16 Thread Gervase Markham
On 08/12/16 20:48, Gervase Markham wrote: > Require CAs to publish their CPs and CPSes under one of the following > Creative Commons licenses: CC-BY, CC-BY-SA or CC-BY-ND. > > This is so that there is no legal impediment to their proper storage, > scrutiny etc. by relying parties. > > Proposal:

Re: Policy 2.4 Proposal: Require open licensing of CPs and CPSes

2016-12-14 Thread Gervase Markham
On 12/12/16 05:35, Eric Mill wrote: > It's possible there are other edge cases out there that make blanket CC0 or > CC-BY nor practical. I think adding some catch-all text that allows for a > solution ensuring no copyright-based restrictions of any kind would allow > for the bit of flexibility

Re: Policy 2.4 Proposal: Require open licensing of CPs and CPSes

2016-12-11 Thread Eric Mill
An edge case: works of the US government, whether documents or code, are not copyrightable in the US, and so they can't be licensed or dedicated to the public domain in the US. There is some discussion of this here: https://theunitedstates.io/licensing/ (Note: I'm an author of that, in an old work

Re: Policy 2.4 Proposal: Require open licensing of CPs and CPSes

2016-12-11 Thread Gervase Markham
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

Re: Policy 2.4 Proposal: Require open licensing of CPs and CPSes

2016-12-10 Thread Nick Lamb
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

Re: Policy 2.4 Proposal: Require open licensing of CPs and CPSes

2016-12-09 Thread Gervase Markham
On 08/12/16 15:33, Jonathan Rudenberg wrote: > I think this is reasonable. Does it make sense to add CC0 to the list > as well? This would provide an even more permissive license option > than CC-BY. Yes, that makes sense. Gerv ___ dev-security-policy

Re: Policy 2.4 Proposal: Require open licensing of CPs and CPSes

2016-12-09 Thread Jakob Bohm
On 09/12/2016 00:48, David E. Ross wrote: On 12/8/2016 1:41 PM, Jakob Bohm wrote [in part]: 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

Re: Policy 2.4 Proposal: Require open licensing of CPs and CPSes

2016-12-09 Thread Han Yuwei
在 2016年12月9日星期五 UTC+8上午5:42:29，Jakob Bohm写道： > On 08/12/2016 21:48, Gervase Markham wrote: > > Require CAs to publish their CPs and CPSes under one of the following > > Creative Commons licenses: CC-BY, CC-BY-SA or CC-BY-ND. > > > > This is so that there is no legal impediment to their proper

Re: Policy 2.4 Proposal: Require open licensing of CPs and CPSes

2016-12-08 Thread Jonathan Rudenberg
> On Dec 8, 2016, at 12:48, Gervase Markham wrote: > > Require CAs to publish their CPs and CPSes under one of the following > Creative Commons licenses: CC-BY, CC-BY-SA or CC-BY-ND. I think this is reasonable. Does it make sense to add CC0 to the list as well? This would

Re: Policy 2.4 Proposal: Require open licensing of CPs and CPSes

2016-12-08 Thread David E. Ross
On 12/8/2016 12:48 PM, Gervase Markham wrote: > Require CAs to publish their CPs and CPSes under one of the following > Creative Commons licenses: CC-BY, CC-BY-SA or CC-BY-ND. > > This is so that there is no legal impediment to their proper storage, > scrutiny etc. by relying parties. > >