On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 5:02 PM, Arthur Pemberton [email protected] wrote:
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 4:53 PM, Oren Beck [email protected] wrote:
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 4:32 PM, Arthur Pemberton [email protected]
wrote:
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 2:40 PM, Oren Beck [email protected] wrote:
Is it ethical to break established de facto practices for self
serving
reasons?
If it was only that I wouldn't really care. Unless I'm mistaken, this is more than a "de facto" standard, this is a agreed upon standard, ie spec. This isn't some office format, this is something several engineers sat down, through about, published, RFCed and then finalized.
-- Fedora 7 : sipping some of that moonshine ( www.pembo13.com )
Yet RFC to all it's adhocracy cred- still is de facto. Absent a legal precedent elevating RFC above what it presently is. Were RFC considerd actionable to break? The vulture lawyers would be circling
comcraptastic's
undead corpse.
I think you give too much cred to "legal law". I myself only give this level of cred to "natural law". That aside, I would think one's pride as a computer scientist or engineer would lead one to consider RFCs unbreakable. Being or not being a legal law really seems besides the point to me.
-- Fedora 7 : sipping some of that moonshine ( www.pembo13.com )
Oh, I and most of our orbit here have some agreement with your position. RFC is to the Net what the "Gentleman's Agreement" of better vanished times had been. A matter of literal honor and not crude lucre.
But the filthy lucre is what drives lawyers and less savory evils to feeding frenzy. Does anyone recall when the net was a commerce free zone? I wonder if the gift economy of Burning Man was affected by that past?