At 5:46 AM -0700 8/13/08, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>
>The copyright statement cannot be removed (and that is fine with any license
>that I'm aware of), so it will always be clear that the code came from an
>RFC. I believe that the IETF is sufficiently notable that the IETF standard
>copyright notice is roughly sufficient for this.
>
>What this lacks is knowing which RFC it came from. This is technically
>useful, but is not an IPR issue.
The "knowing which RFC it came from" is the point made at the
last IPR WG meeting (by Bill Fenner, I believe, but it is not explicit
in the minutes, so I'm not sure). While I agree that it is not an IPR
issue, it is a standards process issue. Without the RFC Number, the
link to feed back into the standards process is too weak to work.
If someone finds a problem, optimization, or has a question,
they are stuck, and the community loses a chance to benefit.
>My suggestion is adopt a rule that code snippets in any RFC MUST include a
>comment to the effect that "This code was derived from IETF RFC XXXX". If
>it's in the code snipppet as a comment to copy/paste virtually everyone will
>copy/paste it. I suspect that those that wouldn't aren't likely to be
>significantly deterred by a license statement.
This sounds reasonable to me; thanks for the suggestion.
regards,
Ted Hardie
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
