[rfc-i] [Trustees] Objection to reworked para 6.d (Re: Rationale for Proposed TLP Revisions)

Harald Alvestrand harald at alvestrand.no
Tue Jul 21 09:40:52 PDT 2009


Robert Elz wrote:
>     Date:        Tue, 21 Jul 2009 08:57:01 +0200
>     From:        Harald Alvestrand <harald at alvestrand.no>
>     Message-ID:  <4A6566BD.1080404 at alvestrand.no>
>
>   | We have two possibilities:
>   | 
>   | 1 - the update consists of revisions of *every single RFC* that 
>   | references the BSD license
>   | 2 - some RFCs continue to carry the BSD license, even while the "real" 
>   | current license is different.
>
> Harald,
>
> what you're anticipating there is absurd, if an RFC gets issued containing
> code with the BSD licence, then that is the licence that code, in that RFC
> will have forevermore, nothing can change that - and nothing should change
> that, nothng the trustees or community can do can ever change that - only
> the rights holder (author) of the code can cause it to be offered with
> some different licence.    Any system where it even looked as if it were
> possible for anyone to simply alter the licence under which code that
> had previously been published became available would be a disaster.
>   
Robert,

I'm afraid that your perception disagrees with the structure that RFC 
5378 set up. The Trust has enough rights to license code under a license 
of its choice, and has currently chosen to use the BSD license.

The authors may *in addition* license the code under the BSD license, 
the GPL license, or any other license they feel like using, and there's 
no way the Trust can stop them from doing that. But neither can the 
authors restrict the Trust's ability to license the code.

It may be a disaster, but it's been in that state since November 2008.

                  Harald



More information about the rfc-interest mailing list