Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You seem to have missed one occurrence of unauthorized redistributed.
I would suggest suppressing unauthorized there...
Ah, right. When doing that, I realized we could make it even more
readable. Here is the latest updated version:
c. The
On Thu, Dec 08, 2005 at 06:03:00PM +0100, Simon Josefsson wrote:
I've changed it into:
Without separate permission, 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)
* Simon Josefsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [051209 10:38]:
(b) do not claim endorsement of the modified work by the
Contributor, or any organization the Contributor
belongs to, the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF), Internet
Bernhard R. Link [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* Simon Josefsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [051209 10:38]:
(b) do not claim endorsement of the modified work by the
Contributor, or any organization the Contributor
belongs to, the Internet Engineering Task
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
'e.g.' is correct for introducing an example. However, given the number of
people who don't know the difference :-), for example is better.
I've changed it to for example, thanks!
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of
Justin Pryzby [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Nov 21, 2005 at 09:39:34PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 12:28:48 +0100 Simon Josefsson wrote:
Btw, the latest revised license reads:
c. The Contributor grants third parties the irrevocable
right to copy,
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 22:19:08 +0100 Simon Josefsson wrote:
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 00:14:14 +0100 Simon Josefsson wrote:
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[...]
I'm not sure about my suggested
A member of the IPR WG proposed to require that people modifying RFCs
would be required to add a warning label. He suggested the
following license. Would this be DFSG free? I believe it would be.
It appears to be an extreme form of statements such as clearly label
modified works as being
On Thu, Dec 08, 2005 at 07:02:19PM +0100, Simon Josefsson wrote:
A member of the IPR WG proposed to require that people modifying RFCs
would be required to add a warning label. He suggested the
following license. Would this be DFSG free? I believe it would be.
It appears to be an extreme
On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 18:04:58 +0100 Simon Josefsson wrote:
Justin Pryzby [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Nov 21, 2005 at 09:39:34PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
[...]
s/unauthorized redistributed/redistributed unofficial/ , I would
say...
The term unauthorized makes me think
Iwould also rethink the use of
e.g. which most closely means 'that is'.
Wrong. 'i.e.' stands for 'id est', which means
'that is'.
'e.g.' is correct for introducing an example.
However, given the number of
people who don't know the difference :-), "for
example" is better.
This specifically implies,
for instance, that unauthorized redistributed modified
works must not [...]
unauthorized makes me think of license violations. That's not what we're
talking about here
Try this:
This specifically implies,
for instance, that redistributed
Joe Smith wrote:
I think it is accecptable to allow the modified versions to say something
like the following, which the original
appears to disallow.
This document is based on the IETF Internet Standard RFC, although
this version is not offical.
What about RFCs that are not Internet
Scripsit Simon Josefsson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
If the license require ANY endorsement by the IETF to be removed,
saying the original work is an IETF RFC would not be permitted.
Huh? The factual information that the text is based on an IETF RFC
does not in any way imply that the IETF endorses the
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Scripsit Simon Josefsson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
If the license require ANY endorsement by the IETF to be removed,
saying the original work is an IETF RFC would not be permitted.
Huh? The factual information that the text is based on an IETF RFC
does not
On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 00:14:14 +0100 Simon Josefsson wrote:
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[...]
I'm not sure about my suggested name of work phrase; it's clunky,
anyone got anything better?
I agree it sounds strange, but I can't think of a better term.
Maybe title?
But if you
Simon Josefsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Joe Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I think you are thinking of i.e. here. e.g. means more or less
for example.
Doh! Misread that. You are right.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 00:14:14 +0100 Simon Josefsson wrote:
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[...]
I'm not sure about my suggested name of work phrase; it's clunky,
anyone got anything better?
I agree it sounds strange, but I can't think
On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 12:28:48 +0100 Simon Josefsson wrote:
Btw, the latest revised license 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,
On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 22:19:08 +0100 Simon Josefsson wrote:
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 00:14:14 +0100 Simon Josefsson wrote:
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[...]
I'm not sure about my suggested name of work phrase; it's
clunky, anyone
On Mon, Nov 21, 2005 at 09:39:34PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 12:28:48 +0100 Simon Josefsson wrote:
Btw, the latest revised license reads:
c. The Contributor grants third parties the irrevocable
right to copy, use and distribute the Contribution, with
posted mailed
Simon Josefsson wrote:
Hi all. I have discussed an issue with IETF's copying conditions on
debian-devel before, and got several supporters. My effort to change
the copying conditions in IETF has resulted in an updated version of
my proposed legal license,
That means the IETF
Simon Josefsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi all. I have discussed an issue with IETF's copying conditions on
debian-devel before, and got several supporters. My effort to change
the copying conditions in IETF has resulted in an updated version of
my proposed
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi all. I have discussed an issue with IETF's copying conditions on
debian-devel before, and got several supporters. My effort to change
the copying conditions in IETF has resulted in an updated version of
my proposed legal license,
That means the
Joe Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
s/specifically imply/specifically implies/
s/Internet Standard/an Internet Standard/
Fixed, thanks!
I would also personally change the important sentance to this (changes
marked by *'s):
This specifically *implies* that *a modified version*
must
Hi all. I have discussed an issue with IETF's copying conditions on
debian-devel before, and got several supporters. My effort to change
the copying conditions in IETF has resulted in an updated version of
my proposed legal license, and I want to check with this community
whether this proposed
26 matches
Mail list logo
