Re: Non-free IETF RFC/I-Ds in source packages
On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 11:49:48 +0200 Simon Josefsson wrote: Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [...] I don't know whether I'll have enough time to do it personally. Let's do as follows: I see if I can modify the wiki page on Sunday; you look at the wiki page on Monday and, if it's not already updated, you do the changes. OK? I've updated it, thanks! You're welcome! :) Btw, one variant of the MIT License is described at: http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php That is the Expat license, word for word identical. I used that link instead of the one above, this one seems more authorative. That seems to be a valid choice[1], taking into account that http://www.jclark.com/xml/copying.txt recently began to refuse connections on TCP port 80... We are really beginning to have a problem with vanishing URLs for widespread non-copyleft licenses. :-( I'm more and more convinced that my wishlist bug #284340 is a good suggestion... :-| [1] except for the minor drawback of (mis)leading people to consult the OSI list of approved licenses, as if it were anything meaningful... :-( [...] The fact is that it's *one* of the licenses historically used by MIT. But MIT used many other licenses as well, so referring to it as the MIT license is a bit vague. Moreover the X11 license is also known as the MIT license as well; hence the name MIT license is an ambiguous label. As already explained, X11 license is also vague... It's a mess, agreed. I can't think of a better name than Expat/MIT though, and since the URL is present, the risk of confusion seems small. The clearest and least ambiguous name for that license, is Expat license, AFAICT. It has the only drawback of being less widespread and known than MIT license, which, on the other hand, is ambiguous, as already explained. Using the compound name Expat/MIT license or Expat a.k.a. MIT license is, IMHO, the best way to be clear and understandable, while disambiguating the reference to MIT... P.S.: Please do not Cc: my personal address when replying to the list, as I didn't ask to be copied. Thanks. Sorry, I'm reading this list through gmane.org and pressed 'F' in Gnus, which apparently ended up being the wrong thing. Don't worry, nothing serious happened! :) I changed the headers manually this time. It worked! -- But it is also tradition that times *must* and always do change, my friend. -- from _Coming to America_ . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpYyyaXzVGf3.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Non-free IETF RFC/I-Ds in source packages
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [...] These considerations lead to the following proposed rephrasing: | If you prefer another widely recognized free license instead, the | following ones are also fine: | * the 3-clause BSD license |http://www.gnu.org/licenses/info/BSD_3Clause.html | * the GNU GPL version 2 |http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl.txt | * the Expat/MIT license |http://www.jclark.com/xml/copying.txt I agree, and please update the wiki page with this. (I can do it on Monday otherwise, when I also intend to file the bug reports.) I don't know whether I'll have enough time to do it personally. Let's do as follows: I see if I can modify the wiki page on Sunday; you look at the wiki page on Monday and, if it's not already updated, you do the changes. OK? I've updated it, thanks! Btw, one variant of the MIT License is described at: http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php That is the Expat license, word for word identical. I used that link instead of the one above, this one seems more authorative. As far as I'm aware, there is no canonical organization or similar behind the MIT license, so it is difficult to find out whether we are using the correct term for the correct license. The fact is that it's *one* of the licenses historically used by MIT. But MIT used many other licenses as well, so referring to it as the MIT license is a bit vague. Moreover the X11 license is also known as the MIT license as well; hence the name MIT license is an ambiguous label. As already explained, X11 license is also vague... It's a mess, agreed. I can't think of a better name than Expat/MIT though, and since the URL is present, the risk of confusion seems small. P.S.: Please do not Cc: my personal address when replying to the list, as I didn't ask to be copied. Thanks. Sorry, I'm reading this list through gmane.org and pressed 'F' in Gnus, which apparently ended up being the wrong thing. I changed the headers manually this time. /Simon -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Non-free IETF RFC/I-Ds in source packages
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Simon, I would like to thank you for your effort in this struggle against non-free IETF documents in Debian (main). I really appreciate the time that you're dedicating to improving Debian from this point of view! :) Good job! Thanks, that helps me going. :) [...] If you prefer another widely recognized free license instead, such as the revised BSD license, the GPL, the MIT/X11 license, that is also fine. I think it would be better if you explicitly gave reference URLs for the cited licenses. Moreover, it seems that a good URL for the X11 license is not easy to find (there used to be a copy at http://www.x.org/Downloads_terms.html, but it disappeared; there used to be another copy at http://www.gentoo.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/*checkout*/licenses/X11?rev=1.1.1.1, but it had vanished too, last time I checked). And some people claim that there is no single X11 license, since many slightly different variants have been used for parts of XFree86 and Xorg... Consequently, I would rather suggest the Expat/MIT license, which is clearer and less ambiguous. The reference to the 3-clause BSD license should also made clearer. These considerations lead to the following proposed rephrasing: | If you prefer another widely recognized free license instead, the | following ones are also fine: | * the 3-clause BSD license |http://www.gnu.org/licenses/info/BSD_3Clause.html | * the GNU GPL version 2 |http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl.txt | * the Expat/MIT license |http://www.jclark.com/xml/copying.txt I agree, and please update the wiki page with this. (I can do it on Monday otherwise, when I also intend to file the bug reports.) Btw, one variant of the MIT License is described at: http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php As far as I'm aware, there is no canonical organization or similar behind the MIT license, so it is difficult to find out whether we are using the correct term for the correct license. /Simon -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Non-free IETF RFC/I-Ds in source packages
On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 16:06:25 +0200 Simon Josefsson wrote: Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [...] Good job! Thanks, that helps me going. :) You are welcome... [...] These considerations lead to the following proposed rephrasing: | If you prefer another widely recognized free license instead, the | following ones are also fine: | * the 3-clause BSD license |http://www.gnu.org/licenses/info/BSD_3Clause.html | * the GNU GPL version 2 |http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl.txt | * the Expat/MIT license |http://www.jclark.com/xml/copying.txt I agree, and please update the wiki page with this. (I can do it on Monday otherwise, when I also intend to file the bug reports.) I don't know whether I'll have enough time to do it personally. Let's do as follows: I see if I can modify the wiki page on Sunday; you look at the wiki page on Monday and, if it's not already updated, you do the changes. OK? Btw, one variant of the MIT License is described at: http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php That is the Expat license, word for word identical. As far as I'm aware, there is no canonical organization or similar behind the MIT license, so it is difficult to find out whether we are using the correct term for the correct license. The fact is that it's *one* of the licenses historically used by MIT. But MIT used many other licenses as well, so referring to it as the MIT license is a bit vague. Moreover the X11 license is also known as the MIT license as well; hence the name MIT license is an ambiguous label. As already explained, X11 license is also vague... :-( P.S.: Please do not Cc: my personal address when replying to the list, as I didn't ask to be copied. Thanks. -- But it is also tradition that times *must* and always do change, my friend. -- from _Coming to America_ . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpEikk7R7VIS.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Non-free IETF RFC/I-Ds in source packages
Gervase Markham [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Simon Josefsson wrote: http://wiki.debian.org/NonFreeIETFDocuments A useful thing to add to that page would be simple instructions on how those authoring IETF documents could make them available under a DFSG-free licence (presumably in parallel to the IETF one) - perhaps some sample boilerplate text to include. Good idea! I've added two new sections to the wiki page: 1. Template for license to include in RFCs. [1] 2. Template for e-mail to request additional rights from RFC authors. [2] The text is just in draft form, so please review it. Possibly, we could use something simpler in [2], or even in [1] too. /Simon [1]: x. Copying conditions The author(s) agree to grant third parties the irrevocable right to copy, use and distribute the work, with or without modification, in any medium, without royalty, provided that, unless separate permission is granted, redistributed modified works do not contain misleading author, version, name of work, or endorsement information. [2]: Subject: Requesting additional rights to RFC Dear Author, The Debian GNU/Linux distribution wishes to incorporate the IETF RFC as part of its distribution, and to allow users to develop, modify and evolve the document. Because the authors of contributions to the IETF standards retain most intellectual property rights with respect to such contributions under IETF policies in effect during the development of RFC , and because you are an author of said document, the Debian community hereby requests that you kindly agree to release your contributions in RFC under the license below, for inclusion in Debian. I agree to grant third parties the irrevocable right to copy, use and distribute the work, with or without modification, in any medium, without royalty, provided that, unless separate permission is granted, redistributed modified works: (a) do not contain misleading author, version, name of work, or endorsement information, and (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 Research Task Force (IRTF), Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG), Internet Architecture Board (IAB), Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA), Internet Society (ISOC), Request For Comments (RFC) Editor, or any combination or variation of such terms (including without limitation the IETF 4 diamonds logo), or any terms that are confusingly similar thereto, and (c) remove any claims of status as an Internet Standard, including without limitation removing the RFC boilerplate. The IETF suggests that any citation or excerpt of unmodified text reference the RFC or other document from which the text is derived. To indicate that you agree to these terms, please reply to this e-mail and quote the license above and indicate that you agree to this. If you prefer another widely recognized free license instead, such as the revised BSD license, the GPL, the MIT/X11 license, that is also fine. Sincerely yours, Simon Josefsson -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Non-free IETF RFC/I-Ds in source packages
On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 18:04:22 +0200 Simon Josefsson wrote: Gervase Markham [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Simon Josefsson wrote: http://wiki.debian.org/NonFreeIETFDocuments A useful thing to add to that page would be simple instructions on how those authoring IETF documents could make them available under a DFSG-free licence (presumably in parallel to the IETF one) - perhaps some sample boilerplate text to include. Good idea! I've added two new sections to the wiki page: 1. Template for license to include in RFCs. [1] 2. Template for e-mail to request additional rights from RFC authors. [2] Simon, I would like to thank you for your effort in this struggle against non-free IETF documents in Debian (main). I really appreciate the time that you're dedicating to improving Debian from this point of view! :) Good job! [...] If you prefer another widely recognized free license instead, such as the revised BSD license, the GPL, the MIT/X11 license, that is also fine. I think it would be better if you explicitly gave reference URLs for the cited licenses. Moreover, it seems that a good URL for the X11 license is not easy to find (there used to be a copy at http://www.x.org/Downloads_terms.html, but it disappeared; there used to be another copy at http://www.gentoo.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/*checkout*/licenses/X11?rev=1.1.1.1, but it had vanished too, last time I checked). And some people claim that there is no single X11 license, since many slightly different variants have been used for parts of XFree86 and Xorg... Consequently, I would rather suggest the Expat/MIT license, which is clearer and less ambiguous. The reference to the 3-clause BSD license should also made clearer. These considerations lead to the following proposed rephrasing: | If you prefer another widely recognized free license instead, the | following ones are also fine: | * the 3-clause BSD license |http://www.gnu.org/licenses/info/BSD_3Clause.html | * the GNU GPL version 2 |http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl.txt | * the Expat/MIT license |http://www.jclark.com/xml/copying.txt -- But it is also tradition that times *must* and always do change, my friend. -- from _Coming to America_ . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgptUarDPkoEs.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Non-free IETF RFC/I-Ds in source packages
Simon Josefsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Bug #390664 inspired me to look in source packages for IETF RFC/I-D's too, and the situation seem to be more problematic. I've put a list of packages in testing (as of a few days ago, my mirror is slow) that appear to contain IETF RFC or I-D's at: http://josefsson.org/bcp78broken/ietf-in-src.txt There are certainly false positives in that list (I know of some), and some have already been reported. The regexp I used was: -e rfc[0-9]+\.txt \ -e draft-.*[0-9][0-9]\.txt \ But still, that's 73 source packages. I will try to go through them and report bugs, but I could use help in analysing the packages for false positives. Perhaps a page on wiki.debian.org could be used to co-ordinate this. I've created a wiki page to co-ordinate the effort, see: http://wiki.debian.org/NonFreeIETFDocuments In particular, I'd like help on improving the bug report template. Unless it turns it is a bad idea to do so (thoughts welcome!), I'll send the bug reports next weekend. I've cc:ed debian-devel to reach a wider audience. /Simon -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Non-free IETF RFC/I-Ds in source packages
Simon Josefsson wrote: http://wiki.debian.org/NonFreeIETFDocuments A useful thing to add to that page would be simple instructions on how those authoring IETF documents could make them available under a DFSG-free licence (presumably in parallel to the IETF one) - perhaps some sample boilerplate text to include. Gerv -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
