Simon Josefsson wrote: > We disagree here. I believe the IETF has a responsibility to > chose a license that works well for a large majority of > Internet users. To some extents, the IETF needs to cater for > organizations that make up parts of the Internet. Users include authors of RFCs as well as readers. From the POV of somebody who'd wish to contribute to the tools the proposed NPOSL 3.0 <http://trustee.ietf.org/licenses.html> appears to be close to CC-BY-SA, therefore I like it (IANAL). The discussed drafts won't let me put "NPOSL 3.0 code" into an Internet-Draft, they won't let me put sample code with a "some rights reserved" proviso into an Internet-Draft. The rules in the drafts boil down to CC-BY (= credits required), and making this worse for the benefit of a debian list would make these new rules even more harmful for many readers. RFCs without sample code, if that happens to be "beerware" or similar, are IMO not "better" just because debian folks can use the sample code in RFCs as they see fit. It simply means that there will be no sample code (e.g. in your B64 standard) at all in some RFCs under the new rules. The old rules allowed me to look at say sample code in RFC 4122, much better than to track it down elsewhere. The old rules also allowed me to submit an erratum for one example in this code, arguably a wrong example is still better than no example at all. The freedom to do anything with code in new RFCs somewhat misses the point, if the price for this freedom is no code in some RFCs to start with. Frank _______________________________________________ IETF mailing list IETF@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf