Re: Example of RFC 3978 incompatible license indraft-eastlake-sha2-02.txt

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

But it doesn't restrict the right to make use of code extracts;
I personally don't see that as an incompatibility. And it doesn't
contain an additional copyright statement, which 3978 specifically
forbids.

     Brian "IANAL" Carpenter

Simon Josefsson wrote:
> The license below appear to require acknowledgements of the source:
> 
>     provided that this document is identified in all material mentioning
> or referencing this software
> 
> There is no such requirement in the release to third parties of code in
> RFC 3978 3.3.a.(E), thus the above requirement places an additional
> restriction on a derived work from the document.  The restriction is
> similar to the one in the LGPL: you may use the code provided that you
> follow certain rules that goes beyond those specified by RFC 3978.
> 
> Again, I believe clauses like this are fine -- they help get the RFC
> implemented, and thus further the goal of the IETF.  But if the IAB claim
> that the "GNU Public License" (sic) is incompatible with RFC 3978, then in
> fairness, so should other RFC 3978 incompatible licenses be regarded.
> 
> /Simon
> 
> 
>>Hi Simon,
>>
>>Can you point out the specific clauses in the two licenses that you
>>think are incompatible?
>>
>>dbh
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: Simon Josefsson [mailto:[e-mail]]
>>>Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2006 8:56 AM
>>>To: [e-mail]
>>>Subject: Example of RFC 3978 incompatible license
>>>indraft-eastlake-sha2-02.txt
>>>
>>>There has been an argument from the IAB that the "GNU Public
>>
>>License"
>>
>>>(sic) is incompatible with the RFC 3978 license, and thus code
>>>licensed under that license cannot be part of a document.  I'm told
>>>this IAB notice should be sent to this WG, but I haven't seen it
>>
>>yet.
>>
>>>Meanwhile, I'd like to point out that recently approved
>>>draft-eastlake-sha2-02 contains this license:
>>>
>>>1.1 License
>>>
>>>   Royalty free license to copy and use this software is granted
>>>   provided that this document is identified in all material
>>>mentioning
>>>   or referencing this software. Royalty free license is also
>>>granted to
>>>   make and use derivative works provided that such works are
>>>identified
>>>   as derived from this work.
>>>
>>>   The authors make no representations concerning either the
>>>   merchantability of this software or the suitability of
>>>this software
>>>   for any particular purpose. It is provided "as is" without
>>>express or
>>>   implied warranty of any kind.
>>>
>>>As far as I can tell, this is incompatible with the RFC 3978
>>
>>license.
>>
>>>The license also seems incompatible with the notion that code
>>
>>excerpts
>>
>>>should be modifiable, without additional restrictions.
>>>
>>>Personally, I believe the license above, and the (L)GPL, are fine
>>
>>for
>>
>>>use on code in RFCs.
>>>
>>>Are there any thoughts on license incompatibilities from the IPR WG?
>>>
>>>Thanks,
>>>Simon
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>Ipr-wg mailing list
>>>[e-mail]
>>>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg
>>>
>>
>>
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ipr-wg mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg
> 


_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg