Re: draft-bradner-rfc-extracts-00.txt

On Fri, 2005-02-11 at 03:48, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> > Would it be sufficient to require that folks wishing to redistribute
> > non-interoperable derivative works document their changes in the form 
> > of either a note to a relevant WG or area list or an internet-draft 
> > submission?  This at least makes them stick a toe into the IETF process..
> 
> That may fail the "Desert Island" test, which some organization appear
> to be concerned with, compare
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debian_Free_Software_Guidelines>.  It
> may be helpful to review <http://www.debian.org/social_contract> to
> understand the rationale behind such requirements.

I read these pages.  Maybe I'm just dense but I don't see how the desert island
test follows from either the social contract or the DFSG.

Moreover, the open source initiative says it uses  
http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php, which is essentially the same as
the DFSG, to evaluate licenses, and it certified several licenses with
notification provisions, including:
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/nasa1.3.php
and
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/rpl.php

To top it all off, items #2 and #3 of the debian social contract themselves
appear to violate the spirit of the desert island test, as do provisions 3(b)
and 3(c) of the GPL (when redistributing binaries, allowing source to be
distributed later -- if an isolated person is physically incapable of notifying
the author of changes, they are also physically incapable of requesting the
sources from the author).

							- Bill

_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg