No matter what, we have to be clear in our records about when things
change, and folks who extract things need to somehow record when they
did so. That is actually true no matter what, since once the code is
extracted, without some backtrace there is no way verify things. I
would expect folks extracting large pieces of code to mark the RFC they
got it from, and when they took it. But that is up to them. The IETF
ought not mandate any more details than we absolutely have to about how
the code is extracted / used.
Joel
David Morris wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jul 2009, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
The text we are discussing is only about what license we require other
folks to put on code they extract from an RFC.
And, even more specifically, it is only about how we describe that
license in the event that we want to change forward-going extractors.
The difference in the wording has no effect on folks after they have
extracted the code and complied with the instructions.
But that it might change adds a burden of being able to identify the
point in time that the code was extracted and hence applicable license.
I've worked in enough small development organizations to believe that to
be a potentially significant problem.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf