Russ Allbery wrote:
Provided that we rule out disallowing this (which I think Simon's language
is designed to do), the only flaw in this is that it doesn't explicity
state that such derivative works (and the original work for that matter)
may be redistributed freely, and it doesn't define community explicitly to
mean everyone in the world without limitation.

Unfortunately, given the creative interpretation of the Pine license, it's
worth spelling out, even if a license allows redistribution and derivative
works, that it *also* allows redistributing the derivative works.

If we can close those two loopholes and make it clear (it probably is for
people who know the process, but I didn't find it so from the plain
language) that even the I-Ds are "RFC Editor Contributions" for the
purposes of this section, I'm content.
As part of the AFS standardization process, we specify boilerplate that must be incorporated into the submission for the submission to be considered as part of the series of AFS standards. We can use that to fix any flaws that may exist.
Please propose text.


Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

_______________________________________________
AFS3-standardization mailing list
[email protected]
http://michigan-openafs-lists.central.org/mailman/listinfo/afs3-standardization

Reply via email to