In message
<A73AFF7EC44A0A16BD02EC59(_at_)sirius(_dot_)fac(_dot_)cs(_dot_)cmu(_dot_)edu>,
Jeffrey Hutzelman
writes:
On Tuesday, February 07, 2006 12:15:18 PM -0500 Russ Housley
<housley(_at_)vigilsec(_dot_)com> wrote:
Most RFCs do not contain source code. The IESG discussed this situation,
and felt that the explicit licenses was the right thing to do in this
situation. Including source code without any indication of the authors
intent seemed much worse.
I fail to see the difference between this case and that of RFC1321.
That was also an informational document describing a hash algorithm
originally specified outside the IETF. It also included a reference
implementation, under remarkably similar license terms. It was right to
publish that document in 1992, and it is just as right to publish this one
today.
In the abstract, you're completely correct. But IETF procedures have
tightened up a lot since 1992; we're much more aware of certain things.
I'm not saying it's wrong to include that license today -- fortunately,
I no longer have to have an opinion on such things! -- but I don't
think that 1321 is a binding precedent.
--Steven M. Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf