ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [rfc-i] Objection to reworked para 6.d (Re: Rationale for Proposed TLP Revisions)

2009-07-20 13:06:43
You are correct.  I remembered the text differently, but should
have checked.  I apologize.

   john


--On Monday, July 20, 2009 12:23 -0400 Russ Housley
<housley(_at_)vigilsec(_dot_)com> wrote:

At 08:25 AM 7/20/2009, John C Klensin wrote:


--On Monday, July 20, 2009 14:20 +0200 Julian Reschke
<julian(_dot_)reschke(_at_)gmx(_dot_)de> wrote:

Julian Reschke wrote:
...
3) If I *extract* ABNF from these documents (such as for
the purpose of  generating an input file for an ABNF
parser), do I need to include the  BSD license text? If
so, can somebody explain how to do that given the
constraints of the ABNF syntax?
...

Explanation: for some reason I thought that the ABNF syntax
only allows comments that are attached to an ABNF rule; but
it appears that I was confused.

Independent of that, considering any sequence of ABNF
statements as necessarily "code" goes far beyond the intent
of the IPR WG as I, at least, understood it.   If you, as
author, want to identify it as "code", that is your
perogative, but this is about copyright and not patents and,
at least IMO, metalanguage, metasyntax, pseudo-code, etc.,
are not intrinsically code in the sense that the WG discussed
and intended it.

I agree this is about copyright (not patents).  However, your
interpretation of "code" does not align with the words in the
RFC.  See Section 4.3 of RFC 5377:

    IETF Contributions often include components intended to be
directly
    processed by a computer.  Examples of these include ABNF
definitions,
    XML Schemas, XML DTDs, XML RelaxNG definitions, tables of
values,
    MIBs, ASN.1, and classical programming code.  ...

Russ 




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

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>