Code demands a license acknowledgement which seems excessive for a template.On Jan 27, 2015 11:22 PM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 28/01/2015 16:16, John Levine wrote: > >> IANAL (other disclaimers incorporated by hand-waving), but a > >> plain-English reading of this indicated that the text gives > >> permission to modify the text of the template itself. > > > > It does, but I don't see what practical problem this causes. > > > > Templates are functional, so the copyrights on them are pretty thin in > > the first place, and once extracted from the RFC without the rest of > > the RFC text, what do we care? We've allowed modified versions of > > code components for quite a while, and as far as I know that hasn't > > caused any problems for the IETF. > > I agree, and in fact my first reaction was to wonder why we don't just > lump templates in with code. > > Brian >