On 13 Jul 2010, at 22:05, Marcus Watts wrote: > 3. The copyright thing seems overly onerous. It also seems largely > derived from section 5 of BCP 78. Except for E, which seems to > be unique to this document. Can this really be an invitation to > document features with i386 machine language? Regardless, I think > this is overly prescriptive.
We did this to death in July 2008. Essentially, our hands are slightly tied by our desire to use the Independent Submissions process for our document series. Essentially, that requires that we use a defined copyright boiler plate, although it permits us to add additional clauses. Russ raised the issue that AFS standards documents should be freely redistributable which clause E), which came from Jeffrey H, aims to resolve. If you're interested in more of the background, I'd advise reading the list archives from that month. Cheers, Simon. _______________________________________________ AFS3-standardization mailing list [email protected] http://michigan-openafs-lists.central.org/mailman/listinfo/afs3-standardization
