[Members] XEP-0001: Remove impossible guarantee from XSF Objectives
jonas at wielicki.name
Wed Jan 15 20:49:39 UTC 2020
On Dienstag, 14. Januar 2020 19:49:18 CET Marvin W wrote:
> On 1/14/20 5:07 PM, Ralph Meijer wrote:
> > It basically says that we assess protocols for encumbrance, and not
> > approve extensions failing that test.
I agree with that.
> Relevant in this context (from XEP-0001 § 5):
> > The granting of Experimental status must not be construed as
> > indicating any level of approval by the XSF, the XMPP Council, or the
> > XMPP developer community.
> Or in other words: Even if there are claims that would prevent
> perpetual, unrestricted, royalty-free use of the extension (as per IPR
> policy § 3.2), this is not a reason to not have the extension in
> Experimental or Deferred status.
I think this is wrong. The IPR policy is in effect starting from the very
moment the XEP is under Experimental and must be accepted by anyone submitting
a ProtoXEP. That is, from my understanding, one of the reasons we have the
Experimental phase: To ensure that the IP questions on the Extension itself
are cleared up from the point where the Community starts to work on it.
Everyone contributing to a published (Experimental onwards) XEP is aware of
the IPR policy and agrees that their contributions are under those terms.
This is one of the things which work towards Objective 4, but unrelated to the
discussion about OMEMO and GPL requirements for implementations. I still
wanted to clarify the scope of the IPR policy and why it exists.
> Approval is what happens when a XEP is
> advanced to Draft. Thus IP claims would be a reason to reject an
> extension, should the author propose it for advancement at that state.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
More information about the Members