* Sandra Murphy: > (3) there is no stable spec for rsync (aka "the code is the spec") > > OK, we'll register the URI based on ... the code? (if we can)
I wonder if rsync is the right protocol anyway. To me, this looks more like an application of zsync or WebDAV (with VCDIFF, RFC 3284, for transmitting delta updates). zsync is similar to rsync, but doesn't need special server support. It should also be easier to standardize. It's not clear to me if you need rsync's capability for transmitting collections of files. In that case, neither approach willl help you, but you should be aware that the current rsync implementation binds significant resources on the server side, particularly for large directory trees. To a lesser extent, this also applies to the single-file mode. > At this point in the history, I discovered that the rsync open source > project used a license that forbid charging for any code that included > their code. That would have made commercial implementations problematic. > > However, I just discovered that with the announcement of rsync 3.0 on > March 1, 2008 they have moved from GPL version 2 to GPL version 3: > http://www.samba.org/rsync/GPL.html The charging scheme (you may create derivative works if you give downstream users the same permissions as we gave to you) hasn't changed, so this will not make a difference. _______________________________________________ Sidr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
