On 10/31/16 2:34 PM, Sam Whited wrote:
On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 3:27 PM, Dave Cridland <[email protected]> wrote:
But note that there's a horrible grey area we might want to get the
next Board to look into in cases like this, when there's a protoXEP
being (effectively) worked on within the XSF repository. The original
XEP was rejected on the grounds of - as I recall - IPR issues. But
these having been resolved, further work is now not yet owned by the
XSF, so licensing is very unclear, and becomes less clear with each
edit.
This is one of the many reasons why I strongly prefer to accept
proposals as soon as possible and publish them as XEPs.
Peter
_______________________________________________
Standards mailing list
Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
Unsubscribe: [email protected]
_______________________________________________
