On Mar 2, 2011, at 08:41 , Mark Rejhon wrote: > On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 10:25 AM, Matthew A. Miller > <[email protected]> wrote: >>> When I release permissive open source code, I save all of you time. >>> Even in your commercial projects. >>> Also, that's not 8 hour days -- because I have a full time job and I >>> only work on XMPP-RTT during my free time. >>> Also, it took me less than 1 day to do a test rtt without real time >>> editing. 2 days is with editing capabilities. >>> >> >> 1) Unless the code released for a lot of different platforms and languages, >> it will not save everyone time; in fact, it will save very few people time, >> and may actually *cost* more time if the protocol is under specified. >> 2) Unless the license is "public domain" or something as permissive (e.g. >> 2-clause BSD), this code will not save commercial projects time. >> 3) Some of us like our software to go through rigorous testing, for which "2 >> part time days" quickly turns into (at least) 1 work week. >> 4) One implementation is not enough for ratification of a protocol. >> 5) Relying on an implementation to completely document a protocol is not >> acceptable. >> >> - m&m > > Ok, those comments are fair. On the principle of perspective I agree > with all 5. That said, I am sure that you agree that source code is > better than none at all. :-) Except for the external library > (currently using jabber-net and Google GData for the moment), I should > note that all the code in the software is either already public > domain. >
I'm not sure I completely agree with "source code is better than none at all", especially at this point of the protocol development. Note that I did not say I disagree (-: Having all of the relevant code is open can beneficial, but is no excuse for a poor specification. That's my main point: a poor spec with a single reference implementation is worse, in my opinion, than a good spec and no reference implementation (at this stage). > Therefore, I do have complete freedom to decide on which open source > license to release my client under. Currently, I am considering > Apache 2.0. Understandably, the libraries have their own separate > licenses. Over time more options will appear, perhaps even by me. > But it's a start. > This is getting into off-topic discussion... I am 90% sure that jabber-net is licensed GPL v2, which I believe requires you to release your code as GPL. I'm not a license expert or a lawyer, but I still have to be very cautious on what intellectual property "we" (my employer) use, whether for inclusion or sample reference. > Meanwhile, let's observe that the spec is much more complex than its > own implementation. I'm now working on that. I can't wait to see the update! - m&m
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
