[cabfpub] CPs, CPSes and copyright
gerv at mozilla.org
Tue May 19 09:55:57 MST 2015
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.
> -----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?
> * 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
More information about the Public