[Standards] XEP licensing

[Peter Saint-Andre]

Thomas Charron wrote:
> On 10/22/07, Richard Laager <rlaager at wiktel.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 2007-10-22 at 10:20 +0100, Dave Cridland wrote:
>>> On Mon Oct 22 09:23:17 2007, Remko Tronçon wrote:
>>>>> IIRC, the problem was that
>>>>> the license doesn't allow one to redistribute modified RFCs.
>>>> Why would they want to modify RFCs?
>>> It's a principle of the thing with DFSG. I can understand their point
>>> of view, but I don't think it's our job to adhere to their
>>> requirements, either.
>>>
>>> We need to ensure that our licensing is correct for what we require.
>>> If we can accomodate Debian, great, but I suspect we can't, and I'm
>>> not too fussed anyway.
>> Where's the *harm* in allowing people to redistribute derivative works?
> 
>   People possibly change the spec, and distribute it indistinguishable
> from the original.

Personally I don't worry about such theoretical concerns. The solution
to such worries is to publish early and often at xmpp.org.

/psa

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 7338 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Url : http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20071022/4f4c7656/attachment.bin