Tony, yes, I believe that would be fine. The best would be to ask debian-legal (or a similar community) to review it. They have experience in evaluating software licenses. I'll forward the updated language to them, and will relay any responses that indicate a problem. Generally, it is unfortunate and problematic to create new licenses. Incompatibilities and problems have a history of turning up later on. I believe the IETF should adopt a specific permissive license for its publications to avoid this problem. The license should be reviewed by the community. If people are interested in this topic, please participate in the IPR working group. Regards, Simon Tony Hansen <tony@xxxxxxx> writes: > If this sentence were changed to read: > > Royalty free license to copy and use this software is granted, > provided that redistributed derivative works do not contain > misleading author or version information. > > would that satisfy your concerns? The new wording is similar to the > phrasing found in the comparable statement in punycode's RFC 3492. > > Tony Hansen > tony@xxxxxxx > > Simon Josefsson wrote: >> >> The license in section 1.1 reads: >> >> Royalty free license to copy and use this software is granted >> provided that this document is identified in all material >> mentioning or referencing this software. >> >> I believe this part of the license is incompatible with some licenses >> used to implement IETF protocols. It has the same problem as the >> advertisement clause in the old BSD license. It is thus questionable >> whether the document achieve its stated goal. _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf