[cabfpub] CPs, CPSes and copyright

[Gervase Markham]

On 14/05/15 15:48, Ben Wilson wrote:
> A Creative Commons license with the right to create derivative works sounds
> reasonable enough.  That reminds me, I think you mentioned that we needed to
> go back and edit a current version of one of the guidelines to make the
> copyright policy consistent with what we said in one of the other guideline
> documents.  Right?

Yes.

* The copyright statement at the front of the EV Guidelines does not
match, in the scope of its permissions, the agreed position on copyright
found in our IPR Policy section 6.2.

* The BRs did have a copyright statement (which was the same as the one
on the EV Guidelines, i.e. wrong), but it seems to have fallen off as
part of the conversion to RFC format.

* The Network Security Guidelines appear not to have any copyright
information in them.

One option would be for us to agree that the terms of Creative Commons
CC-BY are basically in line with what the IPR policy requires in section
6.2, and just use that, for the avoidance of doubt and uncertainty.
Using a popular license generally leads to less hassle.

Another option would be that each document be changed to use the
following language, which is heavily based on the text of IPR 6.2:

"Each CAB Forum Participant, on behalf of itself and its Affiliates,
grants a license to all, worldwide, whether or not they are CAB Forum
Participants, to reproduce, distribute, make derivative works and
display this document."

Either change would be fine, although I'd prefer the CC-BY option if
no-one objects.

Gerv