scott == scott bradner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If you understand the open source position and disagree with
it, then there's probably little more to say.
scott If the position is that the open source community can take
scott an IETF consensus-based standard, modify it and
seems to be a reliable way to ensure that there are multiple understandings
of what the standard actually is - I find it hard to understand who that
is good for
Scott
---
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Oct 10 16:01:46 2004
X-Original-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To:
scott == scott bradner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
scott seems to be a reliable way to ensure that there are
scott multiple understandings of what the standard actually is -
scott I find it hard to understand who that is good for
Do you think that trying to describe a modified version
The open source community definitely wants to be able to guarantee to
its users the ability to take text or code from an IETF standard and
use that text or code in derivatives of that standard. Parts of the
open source community want to be able to claim that that standard is
the real unmodified
small quotes are fine (under fair use) but significant excerpts are not
(under normal copyright law and under the copyright notices on IETF RFCs)
Scott
___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Sam == Sam Hartman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Sam Some questions I'd suggest you consider:
Sam * Have the IETF's current IPR practices actually limited any
Sam company's ability to embrace and extend Internet standards?
That's a biased question.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (scott bradner) writes:
there seems to be an assertion of evil intent here that is not the case
What gave you that idea? IMHO, let's leave intent for some other
discussion, and focus on the license.
After having read the discussion for the past few days, I still see no
Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
However, this is not to say that having anyone who feels like it modify
RFCs and republish them is a good idea. Treating natural language text
as source code is a spectacularly bad idea. But then, anyone who has
ever tried submitting changes to the collected works of
Harald Tveit Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
h.
--On 7. oktober 2004 13:12 +0200 Simon Josefsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As far as I can tell, those rights are only granted to the ISOC and
the IETF, not third parties.
Solely for the purpose of using the term in RFC 3667, the
Simon sez:
For IDN, I want to be able to extract the tables from RFC 3454 and use
them in my implementation.
For Kerberos, I want to be able to use the ASN.1 schema in my
implementation, and copy the terminology section into my manual.
For SASL, I want to incorporate portions of the
Eric == Eric S Raymond [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Eric You've had two direct warnings about this -- the ASF and
Eric Debian open letters. They interpreted IETF's passivity on
Eric the Sender-ID patent issue as damage and routed around it.
Eric If the IETF doesn't get its act
11 matches
Mail list logo
