[cabfpub] CPs, CPSes and copyright

Gervase Markham gerv at mozilla.org
Thu May 14 15:36:28 UTC 2015

On 14/05/15 14:45, Peter Bowen wrote:
> I agree that clarifying section 10 is helpful.  I would point out that
> CC-BY (or almost any copyright license) is inherently a legal
> agreement and defines restrictions on redistribution.  Regardless of
> the choice of license, section 10 should be updated to allow
> copyrights and licensing of those copyrights.

I agree that a very literal reading of section 10 would preclude
anything but CC0; OTOH, for certificates in cert stores in particular,
attribution requirements are either very hard to do, or trivially easy,
depending on whether you think the fields within the certificate count
as attribution. Extra attribution metadata that the cert user can see
would be hard.

Perhaps it would be good to have different requirements for certs and
for documents?

> Why not also allow CC-BY-SA and CC0? 

I didn't add CC-BY-SA just to reduce the list of options; I agree
there's nothing wrong with it, and it meets our requirements. CC0 didn't
even cross my mind, but would also be acceptable.

Perhaps we could say "any Creative Commons license which does not
include 'NC' (non-commercial)"?


More information about the Public mailing list