In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jeffrey Hutzelman
writes:
>
>
>On Tuesday, February 07, 2006 12:15:18 PM -0500 Russ Housley
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
