On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 03:07:15PM -0400, Joel M. Halpern wrote: > And, even more specifically, it is only about how we describe that > license in the event that we want to change forward-going extractors. I think it is exactly this premise that some are wondering about. Is there any circumstance under which it is reasonable to try to change the licence of a piece of code once that code has already been released? If so, then Harald's text makes sense, because otherwise his worry about needing to re-publish all those covered RFCs is reasonable. But some of us are wondering whether there is any circumstance in which such an effort would be reasonable anyway. As Harald points out elsewhere, the code is already released under its first licence, so it is not like it's possible to change the terms really. To me, therefore, this just seems like a way to make lawyers nervous without adding any additional benefit. If there is a real use case for wanting "to change forward-going extractors", I don't know what it is. A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@xxxxxxxxxxxx Shinkuro, Inc. _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf