Brian E Carpenter <brc(_at_)zurich(_dot_)ibm(_dot_)com> writes:
Tony,
That would have amounted to the author and IESG deciding
to change the IETF's policy on derivative works, which would
have been way out of line, especially in view of the ongoing
debate about this point in the ipr WG.
I disagree.
Similar license terms are already part of several RFCs, and they don't
amount to change the official IETF policy. Such license statements
merely make those particular document more useful.
Compare RFC 3492, and the license terms in it. I believe
Internationalized Domain Names would not have been deployed as fast if
that document did not contain source under a license that permitted
free use of it (_including_ modifications). I was able to use that
code in my LibIDN.
Further, the license in this approved document was not in line with
either BCP 78 nor RFC 1321. The IESG apparently did not object to the
licensing terms (rightly, I believe).
Although I agree with Steve Bellovin that RFC 1321 isn't
automatically a precedent, I have no indication that it's
caused any problems.
Awkward licensing creates problems continuously. The IETF have been
told about this repeatedly. Witness the FreeBSD 6.0 release
announcement and the discussion with the IAB/IESG that preceded it.
Witness Debian's continued work on removing all traces of RFCs inside
the packages they distribute.
I don't understand why you keep repeating that there are no
indications of troubles caused by the current licensing terms. It is
simply false.
Thanks,
Simon
Brian
Tony Hansen wrote:
If this sentence were changed to read:
Royalty free license to copy and use this software is granted,
provided that redistributed derivative works do not contain
misleading author or version information.
would that satisfy your concerns? The new wording is similar to the
phrasing found in the comparable statement in punycode's RFC 3492.
Tony Hansen
tony(_at_)att(_dot_)com
Simon Josefsson wrote:
The license in section 1.1 reads:
Royalty free license to copy and use this software is granted
provided that this document is identified in all material
mentioning or referencing this software.
I believe this part of the license is incompatible with some licenses
used to implement IETF protocols. It has the same problem as the
advertisement clause in the old BSD license. It is thus questionable
whether the document achieve its stated goal.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf