[rfc-i] Objection to reworked para 6.d (Re: Rationale for Proposed TLP Revisions)
housley at vigilsec.com
Mon Jul 20 09:23:26 PDT 2009
At 08:25 AM 7/20/2009, John C Klensin wrote:
>--On Monday, July 20, 2009 14:20 +0200 Julian Reschke
><julian.reschke at gmx.de> 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.
I agree this is about copyright (not patents). However, your
interpretation of "code" does not align with the words in the
RFC. See Section 4.3 of RFC 5377:
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. ...
More information about the rfc-interest