Ned Freed wrote: >> The proposal never asked for open source implementations. > > Again, the proposal says the sorts of implementations that should be listed > are ones meeting this condition: > > The minimum rights that should be granted for this source code > are the right to duplicate it for purpose of reading it and the > right to execute it or generate the binary code to execute it. > > That may allow some implementations that don't fit your definition of "open > source",
Here's the beginning of the Open Source Definition: "Open source doesn't just mean access to the source code." So please stop labeling it as open source. It is not and never was. Anyway, I already said in other thread that there is a consensus against this proposal, so no need to add more. -- Marc Petit-Huguenin Home: [email protected] Work: [email protected] _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
