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

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:jas@extundo.com]
>> Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2006 8:56 AM
>> To: ipr-wg@ietf.org
>> 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
>> Ipr-wg@ietf.org
>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg
>>
>
>

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