On 7/13/2010 10:38 PM, Marcus Watts wrote: > > Yes, you did this "to death". But the question here is not who > wants to enter the steel cage of death, but what did we think of > the result that came out. > > For me, the thing I want to avoid having is a copyright statement > I have to show the umich lawyers and ask them what it means. I'm > quite likely to decide that's a rathole I'd rather not dive into. > > The "freely" redistribution is quite noble and good, but that's > not a independent submissions process requirement, that's an > additional requirement you've added. In the text you got > from jhutz, the "freely" redistributable part is already in the > preamble and in section C. B could be folded into C by removing > the "other than translations" clause. E merely duplicates C, then > adds patent text that's not copyright, and is most likely already > covered by the bcp 78 submissions process. Of course, if > you actually wanted "freely usable", and not just "freely > redistributable" you might not want this patent clause. > > So the question I'll ask at this point is whether the umich copyright > I've been adding to my contributions meets this standard? >
Marcus: Are you placing the UMich copyright on your code or on the Internet Draft you are submitting for standardization? It makes a big difference. Jeffrey Altman _______________________________________________ AFS3-standardization mailing list [email protected] http://michigan-openafs-lists.central.org/mailman/listinfo/afs3-standardization
