ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Last Call for Comments on " Legal Provisions Related to IETFDocuments"

2008-08-12 18:05:34
Brian E Carpenter wrote:

How about adding some weasel words, or even simply making the
attribution requirement a "should"?

I tend to forget the details, but IIRC we have a SHOULD for an
attribution elsewhere (not in the part about code).  If that is
very clear folks might arrive at the conclusion that it's also
*desired* for code snippets.  But not *required*.

It's not like we're asking for much:
 
# This code was derived from IETF RFC XXXX. Please retain this
comment if possible.

Not fair.  We can't put code with similar statements in an RFC
in some cases, where somebody also didn't "ask for much", just
a beerware licence or copyright note or similar.  Therefore we
should also not "ask for much" from others if there's a chance
that this is too much.

 Frank

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf