Re: [rfc-i] Objection to reworked para 6.d (Re: Rationale for Proposed TLP Revisions)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



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.
ABNF was specifically used as an example of "code" in the WG discussions.

RFC 5377 section 4.3:


  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.

_______________________________________________

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

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]