Let's be quite clear here.
Your stated requirement for doing this was that authors had to be able
to take and modify any text from anywhere in an RFC.
The Working Group concluded that while that was reasonable relative to
code (and we tried to give the open source community that ability
relative to code), that such a wide grant was not reasonable relative to
the text content of RFC. (Among other concerns, such changes would
include modification of normative text and text carefully worked out by
working groups to get the meanings right. If the WG got it wrong, the
IETF is the place to fix it, not comments in code somewhere.)
Also, it should be understood that this issue is largely orthogonal to
the topic under discussion. The working group could have included what
Simon asked for in 5377. The rough consensus of the WG was not to do
so. A more narrow 5378 would make it harder to make such a grant, but
since the working group didn't choose to do so (and personally, I think
doing so would undermine much of our work) the issues seems to have no
bearing on "whould we rescind 5378?" or "is there a better transition
strategy to get 5378 to apply to the bulk of our work?" or "how do we
get 5378 rights in code, without holding up all the other documents?"
Simon Josefsson wrote:
One of the remaining problems is, as described above, that the IETF
license does not permit authors to take BSD licensed code and use them
as illustration in RFCs because RFC 5378 does not permit additional
copyright notices to be present in RFCs.
Ietf mailing list