The concerns overlap, but I think they are fundamentally different.
Comment below the text, to ensure full context because I think this is the crux of the matter.
At 11:48 AM 10/5/2006, Simon Josefsson wrote:> Remember, the RFC is not normally used as an implementation library. > We are not trying to provide sample (much less reference) code. We > are trying to provide enough information that people will build > interoperable implementations.
I'm not sure I share this view. There are RFCs whose purpose is to provide easy access to actual implementations, e.g., RFC 4634. They are useful. I would prefer if more RFCs were accompanied with relevant example code, because I find them helpful when implementing the document (regardless of whether I use the code or not).
It seems to me that if the code is important enough that we want to publish the code in an RFC, then we need to make that code available to everyone to use. That means it can not be subject to rules requiring publication of changes, or distribution of source, or any other such license restrictions. If it is reasonable to say that only some readers can make use of the code, then it probably suffices to include an informational reference that says "sample code that is believed to implement this RFC can be found, along with its licensing conditions at URL X://Y.Z"
Yours, Joel M. Halpern
_______________________________________________ Ipr-wg mailing list Ipr-wg at ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg
_______________________________________________ Ipr-wg mailing list Ipr-wg at ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg