Joe Smith wrote: > > "Peter Saint-Andre" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> 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. >> >> ****** > > > That look pretty good to me. But I note a small issue: > > > I'm concerned about the first statement of the licence becoming > innacurate whem modified versions are distributed. Specifically the part > about complience with the IPRP. Modified versions might not meet that, > and then the statment becomes misleading. > I would suggest considering moving that whole sentence to a seperate > standalone paragraph. Then people would be less hesitant about removing > parts of that that are no longer true.
Good point. I'll look into reformatting the notice. It might make sense to split the legal notice into several parts -- a copyright notice (the first clause of the first sentence above), a conformance notice (the second clause of the first sentence above), a permissions notice (the second sentence above), and a warranty/liability notice (the fourth and fifth sentences above). > But otherwise, it looks pretty good to me. A modification of the MIT > License seems like a good choice to me, as if a specialized license is > needed for clarity, starting from a well known and well unstood base and > making the minimum nessisary changes keeps the effort needed to analyze > the license to the minimum. > > I am not a Debian Developer, so this message in no way is a statement on > behalf of the Project. (Although I suspect many would agree with my > sentiments on this issue). > > I am also not a Lawyer, ergo, this is not Legal Advice. Sure, the usual provisos apply. :) > PS: It looks like we may be allowing some stuff under the CC v3 licenses > into Debian, despite the concerns that have been raised on this mailing > list. Oh? By "some stuff" do you mean (1) "stuff licensed under certain CC v3 licenses (e.g., CC-BY) but not other CCv3 licenses (e.g., CC-BY-NODERIVS)" OR (2) "some stuff licensed under (say) CC-BY v3 but not other stuff licensed under CC-BY v3" ? Naturally my life would be a lot easier if we could simply update to version 3 of CC-BY. :) But I would still like the license to be as free as possible. > However, many of the problems found are still problematic, so > changing to something dead simple like an MIT-license derivitive is > still benificial in the long run. Quite possibly. I need to make the case for change in the Jabber community, so it's not a done deal by any means. See this thread: http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2007-October/016914.html Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
