RoadRunner nonsense

[Arthur Pemberton]

On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 4:53 PM, Oren Beck <orenbeck at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 4:32 PM, Arthur Pemberton <pemboa at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 2:40 PM, Oren Beck <orenbeck at gmail.com> 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 )