[Standards] XEP licensing

[Peter Saint-Andre]

Dave Cridland wrote:
> On Mon Oct 22 17:02:55 2007, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>> Not since RFC 3978 was published. Details here:
>>
>> http://josefsson.org/bcp78broken/
> 
> I think some of this is out of date, actually 

Quite possibly. I provided that link as an illustration. If people
really care about this issue w.r.t. the IETF, they can join the IPR WG
discussion list and read the -outgoing and -incoming I-Ds.

<snip/>

> The situation with RFCs is made more complex because the IETF [Trust]
> does not own the copyright on the RFCs, whereas the XSF does. (Or at
> least, it thinks people have assigned it copyright by the action of
> submitting the XEP).

Some XEPs have been explicitly contributed (e.g., XEP-0204). And I
always verify with spec authors that they agree to the IPR Policy when
they contribute a proposal. That task is made a bit easier given that I
author 80% of the specs. :)

> This means that the IETF Trust merely has to work within the rights it
> has been licensed, whereas the XSF can wholesale relicense its XEPs
> utterly.

Right.

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/

-------------- 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/20071022/327422b2/attachment.bin