Re: Outgoing section 5.5 and draft-josefsson (Re: San Diego meeting slot)

[Simon Josefsson <jas at extundo.com>]

"Joel M. Halpern" <joel at stevecrocker.com> writes:

> Simon argued cogently on the list that code that could only be used,
> but not modified, was not helpful.  Well then, we should not permit
> licenses in code in RFCs that have that restriction.

That is a simplified view of things.

If we have two options:

1) No code in the RFC.

2) Code under a less than perfect license in an RFC (for example, the
   MD5 code in RFC 1321 or the SHA-2 code in RFC 4634).

I would chose the latter, since it helps to implement the standard.

I would agree that we don't always have only these two choices, but
sometimes, that is the case.

/Simon

_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wg at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg