[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: in support of axfr-clarify
At 01:34 AM 11/30/02, Dean Anderson wrote:
> No, the cost is not relevant.
I think this is absurd, and irresponsible. Cost and effects on
interoperability are always issues to be seriously considered.
The cheapest thing would be to do nothing. It is, however, not the right
thing to do. Figure out the right thing first and then you can take a
realistic view of the costs.
> What is relevant is doing it right so
> there are no future problems and any future extensions will be
> implementable in some reasonable fashion. The only question being
> addressed here is what is the meaning of "right"?
"Right" might not be the same as "Common". But changes from common aren't
"clarifications". "Right" depends on your point of view.
It didn't mention the word common. I said right. Right is very rarely objective
anyway, so what's your point?
> You can't fix IXFR if AXFR is not nailed down.
I'm OK with that. However, AXFR should be nailed down in ways that
correspond to how people reasonably interpreted the vague spec. The
clarification should be done so as to minimize the breakage to existing
implementations.
I think that AXFR can be nailed down without severely impacting existing
implementations, and I expect that IXFR can be made to work with the
existing (and clarified) AXFR.
That's what the document is trying to do. So far nothing that you said
discusses the document, just how "unfair" it is to djbdns.
> >An applicant for a trademark must declare that he is using, or intends to
> >use, the mark in commerce. See 37 C.F.R. 2.33.
>
> Your statement does not include the word sell, for profit or otherwise.
> There are many non-profits in the US that have trademarks. You also
> seem to be restricting yourself to the US. Are you saying that ISC
> cannot trademark the name whereever they please?
This says nothing of the sort.
Non-profit is not the same as "non-commercial". The ISC uses names in
commerce: it seeks donations, owns property, hires employees, and (if I
recall, either offers either support or directions to Vixies consulting
operations), and promotes the Bind, Inn, and DCHPD packages.
ISC claims (rightly or wrongly) a trademark on Bind. That indicates that
it intends to use "Bind" in commerce. Whether it makes a profit or not
is irrelevant. Bind is a product of ISC.
Whether that trademark claim is invalid (by prior public domain use by
UCB), is irrelevant. Once ISC makes a declaration of a trademark, it
can't later say the "product" is not commercial.
Assuming that you are in the US, you know nothing about UCC. I suggest
an introductory course in the Uniform Commercial Code before you discuss
this so knowledgably. Please point me to a site that is selling BIND on
behalf of ISC.
Of course, it is relevant to point out that if BIND were a commercial product
it would cost more, in real money, to have it changed than for djbdns to be
changed. Since djbdns is apparently a non-commercial product and noone
is employed to make changes or fixes to it, it costs nothing to change and
we have therefore chosen the cheapest alternative.
Danny
--Dean
--
to unsubscribe send a message to namedroppers-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>