Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 10:31:46 +0100 From: Simon Josefsson <jas@extundo.com> To: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> Cc: freebsd-doc@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Proposed license for IETF Contributions Message-ID: <ilu1x0ylbwd.fsf@latte.josefsson.org> In-Reply-To: <20051121.150452.35505952.imp@bsdimp.com> (M. Warner Losh's message of "Mon, 21 Nov 2005 15:04:52 -0700 (MST)") References: <iluk6f1q4m1.fsf@latte.josefsson.org> <20051121.150452.35505952.imp@bsdimp.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
"M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> writes:
> 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'.
I found the last sentence slightly odd too, and your suggestions are
good. I don't think it is necessary to require a reference, it will
be likely be added when it fit the context anyway. So I used
"suggests" instead.
> "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
I agree.
> 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.
Yup. We can expand the document later on.
Btw, the new license text reads:
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. Unauthorized redistributed
modified works must (a) not claim endorsement of the
modified work by the IETF, IESG, IANA, IAB, ISOC, RFC
Editor, or any similar organization, and (b) remove any
claims of status as an Internet Standard, e.g., by
removing the RFC boilerplate. The IETF suggests that any
citation or excerpt of unmodified text reference the RFC
or other document from which the text is derived.
I will update this further today, based on several comments received
when I was away on vacation last week, so expect things to change.
The latest text is always available from
<http://josefsson.org/bcp78broken/>.
Thanks,
Simon
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?ilu1x0ylbwd.fsf>