John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Simon Josefsson writes: >> Is that license acceptable to the Debian community? > > Looks fine to me. Is it going to be retroactive?
It is a good question. The RFC Editor has claimed that the RFC 2026 license apply to older RFCs too, in particular RFC 1510 which concerned me at the time enough so that I asked them. I wonder if that action is really legal, but if it is, it may be doable again. Also, RFCs with the new license doesn't include the license template itself, it just reference BCP 78. So if BCP 78 is updated, perhaps it automatically apply to RFCs that simply reference BCP 78. I doubt the legality of that too. FYI: I will travel to the next IETF meeting and discuss this problem in the IPR WG. I will create a presentation and ask for feedback on it on this list. I have also significantly revised <http://josefsson.org/bcp78broken/> and the I-D that goes together with the page. Please read it and tell me what you think. If you can explain matters like this to a wide audience, your help would be very welcome... I want the document to be as neutral as possible, while still explaining that things are currently problematic. The actual license text has only changed slightly though. My proposed license reads: c. The Contributor grants third parties the right to copy and distribute the Contribution, with or without modification, in any medium, without royalty. The IETF requests that any citation or excerpt of unmodified text reference the RFC or other document from which the text is derived. If the text is modified in any way other than translation, any claim of endorsement by the IETF or status within its document series must be removed. Thanks, Simon -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]