There is an explicit list of what is automatically covered as code.
After discussion, that list does not (did not, the last time I checked)
include pseudo-code.
Document authors are free to mark their pseudo-code using the code
marker if they want it treated as code.
The problem, as far as I am concerned, is that pseudo-code is not
well-defined, and therefore including it in the general list, we would
have ambiguity as to what was or was not covered.
Yours,
Joel
Yaakov Stein wrote:
Could you change the wording "BSD License" to "revised BSD License"
to avoid confusion with the "original BSD license"
that contained the infamous "advertising clause" ?
Is pseudocode covered by the terms of redistribution of source code in section
4 ?
The last line of the list of code component types is "classical programming
code".
Does this imply a requirement that the code can be parsed by some means ?
Y(J)S
_______________________________________________
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