A member of the IPR WG proposed to require that people modifying RFCs would be required to add a "warning label". He suggested the following license. Would this be DFSG free? I believe it would be. It appears to be an extreme form of statements such as "clearly label modified works as being modified", which I believe is permitted.
FYI, I have updated my proposed license text, see: <http://josefsson.org/bcp78broken/> Thanks, Simon c. The Contributor grants third parties the irrevocable right to copy, use and distribute the Contribution, with or without modification, in any medium, without royalty, provided that unauthorized redistributed modified works do not contain misleading author, version, name of work, or endorsement information, and that the following text is included in any subsequent distribution: "Warning: This text describes a derrivative of the standard defined in RFCXXXX; the reader should be warned that this modified work may not operate in a way that is compatible with the protocol defined in RFCXXXX, and that using this modified work could result in incompatability with RFCXXXX, and thus fail to interoperate properly with compliant implementations of RFCXXX. Therefore, the reader is strongly urged to carefully review this documentation and the code it accompanies, to determine where this implemention is potentially incompatible with RFCXXX, and determine if such differences with RFCXXXX (if they exist) are acceptable." In addition, any unauthorized redistributed modified works must not claim endorsement of the modified work by the IETF, IESG, IANA, IAB, ISOC, RFC Editor, or any similar organization, and remove any claims of status as an Internet Standard, e.g., by removing the RFC boilerplate. The IETF requests that any citation or excerpt of unmodified text reference the RFC or other document from which the text is derived. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
