With that change ffv1.md has no copyright statement in it anymore

I agree with @michaelni: «something» should be also inside the ffv1.md file.

The copyright statement is added by mmark. If the equation pr is ok perhaps we should leave the copyright statement here but prefix with "PDF:"

This PR is updated according to @michaelni and @retokromer's comments. So that the copyright is still in the markdown, used in the PDF output, but kept out of the RFC output (where it would conflict with the IETF's copyright notice.

I note that this PR uses the same PDF: RFC: line prefixing strategy that creates ugliness in the rendered markdown, as @michaelni notes in #50 (comment). I have an idea to replace ^PDF: and RFC: as line prefixes with potentially a style like:

[RFC]
ascii art for RFC
[/RFC]
[PDF]
LaTeX for PDF
[/PDF]

but suggest that this potential transition does not block this pull request. Currently when the RFC build it contains two copyright notices that conflictingly claim copyright to both Michael and to the IETF.

Please re-review.

Hmm… Should it not be 2017 IETF (or both

2003-2013 Michael Niedermayer
2017 IETF

)? Just asking – Legality is not really my thing.

mmark, which translates the markdown to the RFC XML format, inserts this boilerplate:

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   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 Simplified BSD License.

Since Michael is a listed author, he is described here as a joint copyright holder with the IETF Trust and the other listed authors. I'm not certain but would expect that IETF may object if there are other copyright assertions beyond this one.