You are correct. I remembered the text differently, but should have checked. I apologize. john --On Monday, July 20, 2009 12:23 -0400 Russ Housley <housley@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > At 08:25 AM 7/20/2009, John C Klensin wrote: > > >> --On Monday, July 20, 2009 14:20 +0200 Julian Reschke >> <julian.reschke@xxxxxx> wrote: >> >> > Julian Reschke wrote: >> >> ... >> >> 3) If I *extract* ABNF from these documents (such as for >> >> the purpose of generating an input file for an ABNF >> >> parser), do I need to include the BSD license text? If >> >> so, can somebody explain how to do that given the >> >> constraints of the ABNF syntax? >> >> ... >> > >> > Explanation: for some reason I thought that the ABNF syntax >> > only allows comments that are attached to an ABNF rule; but >> > it appears that I was confused. >> >> Independent of that, considering any sequence of ABNF >> statements as necessarily "code" goes far beyond the intent >> of the IPR WG as I, at least, understood it. If you, as >> author, want to identify it as "code", that is your >> perogative, but this is about copyright and not patents and, >> at least IMO, metalanguage, metasyntax, pseudo-code, etc., >> are not intrinsically code in the sense that the WG discussed >> and intended it. > > I agree this is about copyright (not patents). However, your > interpretation of "code" does not align with the words in the > RFC. See Section 4.3 of RFC 5377: > > IETF Contributions often include components intended to be > directly > processed by a computer. Examples of these include ABNF > definitions, > XML Schemas, XML DTDs, XML RelaxNG definitions, tables of > values, > MIBs, ASN.1, and classical programming code. ... > > Russ _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf