[cabfpub] CPs, CPSes and copyright

[Ben Wilson]

What if we put the following on the title page:


This document is made available under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license.  You may share (copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format) and adapt (remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially) this work.  However, you must give attribution (appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made).  You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.  See http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/   

?

Also, as I noted in Bug 28 (https://bugzilla.cabforum.org/show_bug.cgi?id=28), I didn’t see other, contradictory, language in the Baseline Requirements.  Does anyone see if anything contradictory?

-----Original Message-----
From: Gervase Markham [mailto:gerv at mozilla.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2015 10:56 AM
To: Ben Wilson <ben.wilson at digicert.com>; CABFPub <public at cabforum.org>
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
> 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4954 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20160128/47c0888c/attachment.p7s>