Rick el...@spinics.net writes:
In article 6.2.5.6.2.20090813134034.0331e...@elandnews.com,
SM s...@resistor.net wrote:
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
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
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
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
Can a copyright even be valid for just five lines of code?
I'm told that in some jurisdictions even one line of code is
sufficient.
Wow. That seems patently silly. Am I too late to copyright all calls to
malloc() and free()? :-)
___
Ietf
Sean Turner wrote:
...
In the documents I've worked on, it seems that they just want to put the
statement in the section that collects all the ABNF, ASN.1, XML, etc.
...
Who is they, and how is that consistent with what Joel just told us?
BR, Julian
Julian Reschke wrote:
Sean Turner wrote:
...
In the documents I've worked on, it seems that they just want to put
the statement in the section that collects all the ABNF, ASN.1, XML, etc.
...
Who is they, and how is that consistent with what Joel just told us?
This might be overtaken by
I would consider that OBE. As I understand it, the trust procedures no
longer require those license statements in RFCs.
Yours,
Joel
Sean Turner wrote:
Julian Reschke wrote:
Sean Turner wrote:
...
In the documents I've worked on, it seems that they just want to put
the statement in the
I would consider that OBE. As I understand it, the trust procedures no
longer require those license statements in RFCs.
As of a few days ago it certainly did. Otherwise we wouldn't have put
the license into RFC 5617 for the two lines (five after folding for
margins) of ABNF.
R's,
John
Bernard Aboba [mailto://bernard_ab...@hotmail.com] writes:
...
encapsulation using RFC 2548 MPPE-Key attributes...
I was unclear about how this is supposed to work. Is the idea to apply
the MPPE-Key encryption mechanism to the attribute specified
in the draft,
No.
or is the idea
d.b.nel...@comcast.net wrote:
Yeah. I've always been a bit uncomfortable with the security
functionality escape clause in the RADIUS Design Guidelines draft.
Lots of things can reasonably be claimed to be security related. I
would have preferred the exception to be crafted a bit
11 matches
Mail list logo
