<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 4:32 PM, Arthur Pemberton <<a href="mailto:pemboa@gmail.com">pemboa@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="Ih2E3d">On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 2:40 PM, Oren Beck <<a href="mailto:orenbeck@gmail.com">orenbeck@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> Is it ethical to break established de facto practices for self serving<br>
> reasons?<br>
<br>
</div>If it was only that I wouldn't really care. Unless I'm mistaken, this<br>
is more than a "de facto" standard, this is a agreed upon standard, ie<br>
spec. This isn't some office format, this is something several<br>
engineers sat down, through about, published, RFCed and then<br>
finalized.<br>
<div><div></div><div class="Wj3C7c">--<br>
Fedora 7 : sipping some of that moonshine<br>
( <a href="http://www.pembo13.com" target="_blank">www.pembo13.com</a> )<br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>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.<br>
<br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Oren Beck<br><br>816.729.3645