> >> As a slightly harder example: what is the set of names
> >> required to cover
> >> all the boilerplate text that goes into an RFC containing a
> >> MIB module?
> >
> > See above. In addition, MIB modules were licensed broadly
> > under RFC 3978, so they are less problematic than non-code
> > text.
>
> Maybe I still don't fully understand what 5398 does, but, while
> that broad licensing of MIB modules presumably permits the IETF
> (and others) to work with them, it doesn't imply the transfers
> to the Trust, and ability of the Trust to relicense, required by
> 5398, does it?
Yes it does -- see below
> And, if not, the broad licensing of MIB modules
> doesn't help a new author of a document that incorporates a MIB
> module make the assertions that 5398 requires, does it?
>
> If the answer is "no", then such an author would still have to
> go back to the original Contributor(s) of the MIB module and
> persuade them to generate the new license, just as he or she
> would with any other older contributed text. Right?
My point was that code was already broadly licensed under the OLD
copyright rules in 3978, so the post-5378 contributor doesn't face the
same predicament when he/she re-uses pre-5378 code as when he/she
re-uses pre-5378 text (i.e., his/her warranty is TRUE when made with
respect to pre-5378 code fragments). Here's the code license granted
under 3978:
(E) to extract, copy, publish, display, distribute, modify and
incorporate into other works, for any purpose (and not limited
to use within the IETF Standards Process) any executable code
or code fragments that are included in any IETF Document (such
as MIB and PIB modules),
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf