It has been brought to my attention that the current licensing of the protocol specifications produced by the XMPP Standards Foundation (XSF) is not in compliance with the Debian Free Software Guidelines (DFSG).
The specifications in question, called XMPP Extension Protocols (XEPs), define the protocols used by a wide variety of Jabber software implementations (servers, libraries, clients, etc.). Some of these implementations may be licensed such that their code complies with the DFSG. However, if such implementations wish to include XEPs or substantial portions thereof in their distributions, then the current XEP licensing will prevent the software from being included in free Debian distributions. This is sub-optimal (especially because the jabber.org/xmpp.org infrastructure is hosted on server machines that run Debian!). Therefore we want to make sure that the XEP licensing is in compliance with the DFSG. The specifications are covered by the XSF's IPR policy: http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/ipr-policy.shtml >From 2002 to 2005 these specifications were licensed under the Open Publication License (OPL). In 2005 we changed the licensing to use the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC-BY) because it appeared that the OPL was not being maintained. However, I now realize that CC-BY is considered to violate the DFSG. (Sorry, I have not followed the long-running controversy over CC licenses and the DFSG, although I have done some cursory research into the matter today.) As Executive Director of the XSF, I am willing to push for a change to the licensing so that the XEP licensing is consistent with the DFSG. Although we need to complete some due diligence and come to consensus in our community before settling on a license, it appears to me that the MIT license would be appropriate. (If it were up to me I would place the documents in the public domain, but that may not be consistent with the consensus of our community or the XSF's intended role as a neutral third party and intellectual property conservancy for Jabber/XMPP protocols.) However, the MIT license talks about software, not documentation or, more precisely in our case, protocol specifications. Is it considered acceptable (for the purpose of DFSG compliance) to formulate a legal notice that is nearly identical to the MIT license but that talks about specifications instead of software? I am thinking of a legal notice along the following lines... ****** This XMPP Extension Protocol is copyright (c) 1999 - 2007 by the XMPP Standards Foundation (XSF) and is in full conformance with the XSF's Intellectual Property Rights Policy (a copy of which may be found at http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/ipr-policy.shtml or obtained by writing to XSF, P.O. Box 1641, Denver, CO 80201 USA). Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this specification (the "Specification"), to make use of the Specification without restriction, including without limitation the rights to implement the Specification in code and to read, copy, modify, merge, publish, translate, distribute, sublicense, or sell copies of the Specification, and to permit persons to whom the Specification is furnished to do so, subject to the condition that this copyright notice and permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Specification. THE SPECIFICATION IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR, OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF, OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SPECIFICATION OR THE IMPLEMENTATION OR OTHER USE OF THE SPECIFICATION. ****** Feedback is welcome. Thanks. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
