On Friday, March 13, 2015 11:35:45 AM John C Klensin wrote: > --On Thursday, March 12, 2015 11:40 -0400 Sam Hartman > > <hartmans-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > I'm disappointed that the trust chose to remove the right to > > modify template text. > > > > This makes it impossible to write open-source software for > > filling in templates in these RFCs; I am disappointed the > > trust has chosen to take this step. > > Sam, > > This may go back to our earlier (apparent) disagreement on the > subject. IANAL or nearly a good enough approximation to one to > be competent to assess the details, but my presumption continues > to be that the basic rules about RFCs, plus this language, > allows the type of application you are concerned about as long > as the version of the template in the application is an exact > copy. Given that language, one would certainly have to > acknowledge where the template came from, but that would > probably be necessary for practical reasons (independent of > legal considerations). > > Given that the issue has been raised and is important, I'm > disappointed that the Trust didn't choose to make the intent and > limits absolutely clear whether they intended the narrow > interpretation you infer or the broader one that I do. In > particular, if the intent is that someone building such an > application be required to ask permission (which I think would > be silly as well as damaging), it would be good for the text to > be clear about that). > > best, > john "as long as the version of the template in the application is an exact copy" is the problem. Freedom to modify is a fundamental principle of free and open source software. It's OK from a FOSS perspective to say "If you change it, you have to call it something else" to avoid confusion, but it has to be legally modifiable. Scott K