[cabfpub] CPs, CPSes and copyright

[Dean Coclin]

Hold on here. We typically don't change anything without a ballot ;-)



-----Original Message-----
From: public-bounces at cabforum.org [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org] On
Behalf Of Gervase Markham
Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2015 12:56 PM
To: Ben Wilson; CABFPub
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] CPs, CPSes and copyright

On 14/05/15 16:56, Ben Wilson wrote:
> That's fine with me.  It's essentially the same and it does help to 
> refer to something that is widely known and accepted.

OK. In absence of further comment or objection, could the keeper of the CAB
Forum documents (Jeremy?) please add the following text in an appropriate
place in each document, removing any other copyright-related text as
necessary?


This document is made available under the Creative Commons Attribution
4.0 International license <http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/>.


In the EV Guidelines, that would be on the front page; for the other
documents, they have no existing copyright statement so you would need to
find a suitable spot.

Thanks,

Gerv

> -----Original Message-----
> 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?
> 
> 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
> 
_______________________________________________
Public mailing list
Public at cabforum.org
https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 6130 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20150519/94711e63/attachment-0001.p7s>