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.
Although I agree with Steve Bellovin that RFC 1321 isn't
automatically a precedent, I have no indication that it's
caused any problems. I wasn't involved the decision about
RFC 3492, so I can't comment.
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