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@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf