Re: [tlp-interest] Request to designate TLP Section 6 as Code Components

[Russ Housley <[e-mail]>]

John:

> >Yes, xml2rfc needs to be able to produce the boilerplate.  However, I
> >still do not see it as code.  It is text that happens to be some
> >constant strings in composition tools and templates to assist
> >authors.  The TLP tells authors to include the boilerplate.  I agree
> >with Joel's conclusion: it does not need to be designated as code for
> >any author support tool to use it.
>
>Your answer is quite reasonable, but in view of the trust's apparent
>position that a single line of ABNF triggers the requirement that an
>RFC pull in the BSD license, a reasonable claim that something isn't
>code doesn't make it reassuring.

That was true under TLP 2.0, but it is not true under TLP 3.0, which 
is the current in-force version.  The new TLP boilerplate tells the 
reader to add the Simplified BSD license if they extract code:

This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 
Provisions Relating to IETF
Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the 
date of publication of this
document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe 
your rights and restrictions
with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this 
document must include
Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust 
Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the BSD License.

With this legend, the RFC does not need to include the BSD license itself.

Russ