On 14-Dec-21 15:21, John Levine wrote:
It appears that Salz, Rich <rsalz@xxxxxxxxxx> said:
The point of <CODE BEGINS> and <CODE ENDS> is to be clear that it can be copied into an implementation. Doe you envision the pseudocode being put in the code, even as comments?
I can see that copying it into an implementation as comments could be very useful, so yes.
Urrgh. The TLP says that the code license applies to "components
intended to be directly processed by a computer". That doesn't
include pseudo-code. But ...
The code license requires that you include the three paragraph Revised
BSD license, while the rule for text is that the excerpt must be
copied verbatim with "all IETF legends, legal notices and indications
of authorship contained in the original IETF RFC."
In this case I think you're better off treating it as text. The only
advantage of the code license is that you can modify the code, but it
doesn't sound like that's an issue here.
If the pseudocode has any value, it would be to serve as framework
for an actual implementation. Both solutions seem wrong for that.
Frankly I'd prefer if it could be a DWTFYWWI license, but I don't think
the IETF Trust has one of those. Maybe we need a CC0 option too?
Brian
