Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 15:04:52 -0700 (MST) From: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> To: jas@extundo.com Cc: freebsd-doc@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Proposed license for IETF Contributions Message-ID: <20051121.150452.35505952.imp@bsdimp.com> In-Reply-To: <iluk6f1q4m1.fsf@latte.josefsson.org> References: <iluk6f1q4m1.fsf@latte.josefsson.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
c. The Contributor grants third parties the irrevocable right to copy, use and distribute the Contribution, with or without modification, in any medium, without royalty, provided that unauthorized redistributed modified works do not contain misleading author, version, name of work, or endorsement information. This specifically implies, for instance, that unauthorized redistributed modified works must not claim endorsement of the modified work by the IETF, IESG, IANA, IAB, ISOC, RFC Editor, or any similar organization, and remove any claims of status as an Internet Standard, e.g., by removing the RFC boilerplate. The IETF requests that any citation or excerpt of unmodified text reference the RFC or other document from which the text is derived. > Comments? Suggestions? The only comment about the wording is the word 'request'. I don't believe that 'requests' isn't legally defined very well. Are requests legally binding obligations, or do they communicate wishes that are free to be ignored? Would 'suggests' be better? If it is non-optional, then "Any citation or excerpt of unmodified text shall reference the RFC or other document from which the text is quoted." maybe with the addition of the word 'substantial' after 'Any'. "This specifically implies, for instance, that" is wordy and verbose. It would be better to omit it entirely, and capitalize 'unauthorised': Unauthorized redistributed modified works must (a) not claim laim endorcsement by X, Y, Z (b) remove RFC boilerplate, etc This could likely be improved from there. A license is a series of obligations and grants. It should be clear from the grant what one may and may not do. Having added verbage gets in the way and can lead to ambiguous wording. Such phrases are better for a companion 'Explaining the License' document. Warner
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20051121.150452.35505952.imp>