[Members] XEP IP

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at stpeter.im
Tue Dec 18 16:52:11 CST 2007

Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 18, 2007 at 04:28:01PM +0100, Nicolas V?rit? wrote:
>> On Nov 20, 2007 9:37 PM, Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter at stpeter.im> wrote:
>>> A few weeks ago I posted to the Standards list about intellectual
>>> property [1] issues related to our XEP series:
>>> [1] I don't like the term intellectual property, but everyone uses it.
>> Sorry if this is a stupid question but...
>> don't we have to check the compatibilities between this license and
>> * software implementations licenses,
>> * services licenses,
> The XEP license is essentially the MIT license, which lets you do what
> you want in code implementations and services. I don't see any
> incompatibilities.
>> * other specifications licenses (for example IETF or W3C specs)
> Usually our specs are downstream from those, not upstream. But here
> again we're not restricting usage so I don't see a problem. However I'll
> double-check.

Well I think there are no problems with this. Most specification authors
would simply make a reference to a XEP, not include the XEP or some part
of the XEP in their spec. However, the license we propose would enable
other people to copy text or examples (ec.) from XEPs into their specs
without restriction, so I think we would be encouraging other standards
development organizations (SDOs) to re-use our work.

The only restriction we place on other SDOs is this:


Unless separate permission is granted,
modified works that are redistributed shall not contain misleading
information regarding the authors, title, number, or publisher of the
Specification, and shall not claim endorsement of the modified works by
the authors, any organization or project to which the authors belong, or
the XMPP Standards Foundation.


And I don't think that other SDOs would be distributing modified works
based on our XEPs. At most they would be copying bits of our XEPs.
However if they copy substantial portions of our XEPs (which I see as
unlikely) they would need to include or reference the copyright notice
and the permission notice, which is not an onerous burden.


Peter Saint-Andre

-------------- 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/members/attachments/20071218/341eeccc/attachment.bin 

More information about the Members mailing list