Re: draft-bradner-rfc-extracts-00.txt

Nathanael Nerode <neroden@twcny.rr.com> writes:

>> and later in the same document, for the "Unicode Database" files:
>>
>>> Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a
>>> copy of the Unicode data files and associated documentation (the "Data
>>> Files") or Unicode software and associated documentation (the "Software")
>>> to deal in the Data Files or Software without restriction, including
>>> without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish,
>>> distribute, and/or sell copies of the Data Files or Software, and to
>>> permit persons to whom the Data Files or Software are furnished to do so,
>>> provided that (a) the above copyright notice(s) and this permission
>>> notice appear with all copies of the Data Files or Software, (b) both the
>>> above copyright notice(s) and this permission notice appear in associated
>>> documentation, and (c) there is clear notice in each modified Data File
>>> or in the Software as well as in the documentation associated with the
>>> Data File(s) or Software that the data or software has been modified.
>
> A license corresponding to this (with "Unicode" replaced as appropriate, of 
> course, and "Data Files or Software" replaced with "Document" if necessary) 
> would be considered perfect for RFCs by me and by every other free software 
> or open source software person I have talked to.

I agree.

> Would this not be considered appropriate by others at the IETF, and if not, 
> why not?

I think the argument has been explained already, but to me it appears
to be that some people believe that permitting third parties to modify
IETF documents will somehow lead to negative consequences.  I can't
explain the arguments for this position, because I don't believe they
are valid.  I hope that Scott Bradner, or someone else, will
elaborate.

Thanks,
Simon

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