Theodore Tso <tytso@xxxxxxx> writes: > On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 02:37:50PM +0100, Simon Josefsson wrote: >> > We do have precedent for include code that has explicit open source >> > licensing rights. For example, the MD5 implementation in RFC 1321 has >> > an explicit BSD-style license. >> >> Sure, but under the post-RFC 2026 rules that would not be allowed since >> the rules do not permit additional copyright notices to be present in >> documents. There has been exceptions and mistakes, so there are >> post-RFC 2026 documents with other licensing information in them, but >> the IESG/IAB has also rejected including free software code in RFCs. >> Allowing BSD-like code to be included in RFCs would be great step >> forward. It is not allowed under the RFC 5378 license either, at least >> not generally when the code was not written by the document author. > > This should clearly be fixed in RFC 5378-bis, in my opinion. If the > goal is to allow code to be allowed in Open Source Software, then > requiring a maximally compatible OSS license for code makes sense. No, the problem of using an appropriate license has already been taken care of (the trust uses the BSD license for code-like portions). One of the remaining problems is, as described above, that the IETF license does not permit authors to take BSD licensed code and use them as illustration in RFCs because RFC 5378 does not permit additional copyright notices to be present in RFCs. >> A more realistic approach may be to think about how text in RFCs are >> used. Text often end up in free software projects as comments. This is >> useful and helps get the RFC implemented correctly in a more >> maintainable fashion. The goals of the IETF is furthered by this, I >> argue, so it is disappointing RFC 5378 does not solve the problem. > > At least in the linux kernel, quoting a 2-3 sentences of an RFC in > comments is common practice, even before RFC 5378. It is also been > done with great frequency in documentation, magazine articles and > journals, and so on. Fair use takes care of this problem, and there I > don't think even the most insanely paranoid and unreasonable corporate > lawyer would think that 2-3 sentences quoted in manuals, code, etc., > would be unreasonable. > > Certainly this is something where we have over two decades historical > practice, and if anyone thinks an IETF contributor or company would be > suicidially idiotic enough from a Public Relations point of view to > try to sue someone for using 2-3 sentences when this would be pretty > clearly fair use, and the reputations of said IETF contributor or > company would be pilloried in the press, I would gently suggest that > whoever is worried about is greatly disconneted from reality, if they > were to think about the risks involved. I would agree with you for the 2-3 sentences scenario, but that's missing my point. I would fully disagree when it comes to 2-3 paragraphs, 2-3 pages, or entire I-D's. I believe the latter is the reality with several free software projects, including the Linux kernel. /Simon _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf