[C-safe-secure-studygroup] Feedback request: applicable licence(s) and publication approach for your contributions here

[Robert Seacord]

I wouldn't share any of these products outside the study group because
these are simply interim work products and not written for public
dissemination.

I have no problem if someone (e.g., Laurence) were to petition ISO to
release the final IS free of charge.

On Wed, Jul 25, 2018, 3:33 AM Paul Sherwood <paul.sherwood at codethink.co.uk>
wrote:

> Hi all,
> in light of the recent pickups [1] of conversation about paid-for
> standards vs free contributions which we had when the group started [2]
> and some complementary discussion on the trustable-software list [3], I
> think it's worth attempting to clarify what the community believe the
> rules of engagement are here.
>
> AFAIK we have not agreed any licensing to cover the contents of email
> discussions on the list itself, and all members understand that the list
> is published without restriction, which I take to mean that in effect
> the list contents can and should be considered 'public domain' (IANAL)
>
> The repository and wiki on gitlab [4] are secured and marked private, so
> only members of the group can access the contents, which includes a
> markdown copy of TS 17961, which is covered by an ISO licence which
> expressly forbids publication of the standard's contents on an unsecured
> network. As far as I know we have not agreed any licensing for the
> contributions this community is making as a result of the work around
> considering that standard and MISRA (which itself is licensed,
> obviously).
>
> Given the original discussions, I think the consensus was/is that the
> community outputs and discussions should be open and free to consume,
> but I may be wrong. If I am right, then we should probably consider
> breaking apart the contributions from the original standards, into a
> separate public place rather than continuing to home them in the secured
> repo containing the ISO document itself, and to assert a suitable
> licence on the work.
>
> What are your thoughts on this? It would be particularly worthwhile to
> get perspectives from the contributors who have been shouldering the
> bulk of the technical work, if possible.
>
> br
> Paul
>
> [1]
>
> https://lists.trustable.io/pipermail/c-safe-secure-studygroup/2018-July/000593.html
> [2]
>
> https://lists.trustable.io/pipermail/c-safe-secure-studygroup/2016-December/000018.html
> [2]
>
> https://lists.trustable.io/pipermail/trustable-software/2018-July/000408.html
> [4] https://gitlab.com/trustable/C_Safety_and_Security_Rules_Study_Group
>
> _______________________________________________
> C-safe-secure-studygroup mailing list
> C-safe-secure-studygroup at lists.trustable.io
>
> https://lists.trustable.io/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/c-safe-secure-studygroup
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.trustable.io/pipermail/c-safe-secure-studygroup/attachments/20180818/8a1a1e4a/attachment.html>