1) There is no need to put licenses in the RFC at all. In fact, the
trust document says clearly that putting license text in RFCs is a bad idea.
2) The trust policy states that when code is extracted from an RFC, it
must be marked for attribution, and that the extractor can modify and
use the code as they see fit. The license marking is on the extracted
code, and is specifically to meet those goals.
THE TRUST IS DOING WHAT WE ASKED THEM TO DO.
3) In order to determine what is code within an RFC, the trust has
published a list:
http://trustee.ietf.org/docs/Code-Components-List-4-23-09.txt
That list includes ABNF. And XML Schema, and...
4) If you want something in your RFC treated as code, and it is not in
that list, then you need to mark it with <CODE BEGINS> <CODE ENDS>
5) The trust as said publicly that they are looking into whether there
is a practical way for the person who extracts code from an RFC to use a
shorter license in their extraction.
Yours,
Joel
Julian Reschke wrote:
SM wrote:
Hello,
I was discussing RFC 5617 with someone and the person mentioned that
the copyright in the middle of the document is obnoxious. The
copyright statement for the code is 32 lines while the code (ABNF) is
only five lines.
If an author wants to include the statement in a RFC for the sake of
completeness, is it possible to have the statement in a paragraph near
the end of the document and put in a note before the ABNF to refer to it?
Regards,
-sm
Oh my.
Could somebody clarify what the current situation with respect to ABNF
is? Our WG documents (HTTPbis) contain ABNF fragments all over the
place, and we're definitively NOT going to insert a copyright statement
everywhere.
BR, Julian
_______________________________________________
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