At 06:16 AM 6/18/2007, Dave Cridland wrote:
On Mon Jun 18 08:30:00 2007, Simon Josefsson wrote:
I disagree, I think they do have what Simon's suggesting. But then,
I think RFC2192bis does, as well.
> If you do believe the ABNF needs special licensing in
> this case, I am sorry to say that your remedy is not sufficient.
> document imports ABNF from other documents (from RFC 3986,
> to take one important example). Those documents do not have
> anything like what you suggest.
Given existing wording, it is somewhere between an extremely good
idea and necessary to indicate that the ABNF and the code (and yes, I
agree with Simon that it needs to apply to both) can be extracted and
modified as necessary by anyone. And while we are trying to solve
this for the future, that unfortunately can not help current documents.
My only caveat is that the wording suggested by Simon does much more,
and it is not necessary to go that far to meet the requirements. An
indication that says that those specific parts can be extracted,
modified, and used for any and all derivative works would
suffice. (I am not a lawyer and I am not going to try to write license terms.)
Ietf mailing list