[cabfpub] CPs, CPSes and copyright
ben.wilson at digicert.com
Thu May 14 15:56:20 UTC 2015
That's fine with me. It's essentially the same and it does help to refer to
something that is widely known and accepted.
From: Gervase Markham [mailto:gerv at mozilla.org]
Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2015 9:47 AM
To: Ben Wilson; CABFPub
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] CPs, CPSes and copyright
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?
* 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
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
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 4954 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the Public