On Fri, Oct 28, 2005 at 08:39:05AM +0200, Jacek Konieczny wrote: > On Fri, Oct 28, 2005 at 07:52:24AM +1000, Trejkaz wrote: > > On Wednesday 26 October 2005 19:35, Jacek Konieczny wrote: > > > That doesn't matter. They offer service, not the software. If they > > > offered the software they could not call it "XMPP compliant"... That is > > > how I see it. > > > > I guess by those rules then, no service is XMPP compliant by definition > > since > > it only applies to software. > > There are a lot of generic MUST/SHOULD/etc in the RFC, which apply to > both software and deployment (services). I was talking about those few > "must implement", which are about software only. > > If I sell accounts on my XMPP server, then I may call it "XMPP > compliant" if it doesn't break any MUST/SHOULD/etc rules from the RFC, > except those "must implement". This is choice of my policy if I allow > DIGEST-MD5 or StartTLS+PLAIN. > > If I sell server or client software I may not call it "XMPP compliant" > if one cannot set it up to use StartTLS or DIGEST-MD5 SASL mechanism, as > that are "mandatory to implement" features.
Where "sell" may also mean "distribute freely". -- Groetjes, ralphm
