On Fri, 15 Oct 2004, Eric S. Raymond wrote: > Paul Vixie <paul@xxxxxxx>: > > eric is saying that the previous situation > > whereby a draft author surrendered the IPR before RFC publication was better. > > various others have said "but what if the IPR terms try to distinguish > > between commercial and noncommercial?" my observations are (1) there are > > ways to do "open source" without this distinction, and (2) authors cannot > > be expected warrant their IPR surrender in any case. > > In fact, the *only* way to do open source is without this distinction. > > I actually wish it were otherwise, but my wishes have no effect on the > logic of the situation. Why do you say that? The mail system could fork. Then it would become social darwinism of the emails. Someone may even reimplement uucp. It would be email chaos for a bit. > -- > <a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/";>Eric S. Raymond</a> > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > sleekfreak pirate broadcast http://sleekfreak.ath.cx:81/ _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf