[cabfpub] Discussion Draft for Revisions to Bylaws
gerv at mozilla.org
Wed Nov 13 11:43:13 UTC 2013
On 12/11/13 19:25, Ben Wilson wrote:
> As you stated, an "influx of many small Android browsers" or any other kind
> of numerous small browser developers. As stated in my email of October 10
> with references to past discussions, the size of the browser should be a
> relevant consideration. Several producers of "a software product intended
> for use by the general public to browse" or under the expanded group of
> software "[that] authenticates digitally signed computer code" dramatically
> shift the current conditions. I am acting as scribe, more or less, to what
> I perceive is the concern of a majority of members--I might be wrong, in
> which case we'd need to determine the sentiment of the group.
I notice Rick's document has moved to the concept of "Root Store
Operator". Perhaps the right thing would be to try and come up with a
definition of someone who manages, or ships popular software which makes
significant policy or content changes to, a root store? That would
include Mozilla, Google, Apple, Opera and Oracle, without including
browser manufacturers who simply wrap Webkit and so have no effect on
how the CA system works.
> That's fine. I started down that road before (and I did again after the
> last meeting). I keep hitting a dead end because I must incorporate by
> reference the IPR Policy, which many have complained is not lightweight
Why must you do so?
I thought the entire point of a lightweight IPR agreement was that it
would not incorporate the existing policy by reference, but would
"Hi. If I have ownership of patents on anything I contribute, you can
have full rights to them. And the copyright policy is fine, BTW. Ok,
This would probably only be signed by individuals who did not and had no
intention of holding patents. But a lot of our potential invited experts
fall into that category.
More information about the Public