At 01:51 PM 8/12/2006, Peter Marschall wrote: >Hi Kurt, > >On Saturday, 12. August 2006 21:43, Kurt D. Zeilenga wrote: >> At 12:17 PM 8/12/2006, Peter Marschall wrote: >> >LDAP error code 1 is LDAP_OPERATIONS_ERROR >> >meaning: Server encountered an internal error >> >> I note that the standardized meaning is: >> operationsError (1) >> Indicates that the operation is not properly sequenced with >> relation to other operations (of same or different type) >> >> For an internal error, the server should return: >> other (80) >> Indicates the server has encountered an internal error. >> >> >(see Net::LDAP::Constant) >> >> While some servers (including past versions of OpenLDAP) have >> improperly returned various result codes, I suggest Net::LDAP >> use/provides result code descriptions consistent with those >> found in Appendix A.2 of RFC 4511. > >It would be easiest for Net::LDAP to copy the descriptions verbatim.
Some of the descriptions are quite long. For short descriptive strings returned by the API, you might be better of paraphrasing the RFC 4511 text. For longer descriptive text, such as including in a manual page, I think quoting RFC 4511 with attribution would be good. >But this might not be legal as perl-ldap uses the Perl license >(Artistic / GPL dual license IIRC) while the RFCs might be under >a different license. Personally, I consider verbatim copying of limited portions of RFCs, especially standard track RFCs, with attribution to be "fair use". For instance, I included portions of RFC 4511 in my recent email. I also have incorporated significant portions of RFC 4511 (such as ASN.1 fragments) in OpenLDAP Software. Such copying, I believe, is well within "fair use". I suggest you limit your copying to what you believe to be "fair use" so as to avoid licensing issues. >Can you grant perl-ldap the right to use the LDAP error code >descriptions from the RFC verbatim and re-distribute them under the >Perl license ? If you're not in the position to do so, can you point me into >the right direction whom to ask ? As there are numerous right holders in A.2, the alternative license grant approach is problematic. I don't think its feasible. Kurt
