W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org > January to March 2006

Re: Licence issue / versioning

From: Geoffrey M Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com>
Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2006 12:34:29 -0500
To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF6F8697E1.C7EE4352-ON85257135.005F80CB-85257135.006088B5@us.ibm.com>
I don't think Daniel was asking whether a server can be WebDAV compliant
and not support the versioning functions (defined in RFC-3253), but rather
whether it is "odd" that the vendor is making the customer pay (or pay 
more)
for the versioning features than for the other features. 

In general, what a vendor decides to charge is completely up to that
vendor and is in no way constrained by how features are grouped in the
specifications.  So if a vendor wanted to charge for the ftp "send"
feature, but not charge for the "receive" feature, it is free to do so.

Cheers,
Geoff

Julian wrote on 03/18/2006 11:27:18 AM:
> de Carvalho Klose, Daniel wrote:
> > I am currently concerning about one issue referring to the licence 
model
> > of one commercial vendor of a certain project management software and
> > would like to kindly ask you if it is right what this vendor is doing:
> > 
> > The vendor is promoting a webbased projectmanagement tool that has the
> > webdav standard included (file repository for project data etc.). The
> > weird thing of his licence model is, that the customer has to pay for
> > the "versioning feature" within the webdav standard. It seems totally
> > odd for me, since WEBDAV is an open standard that has already the
> > versioning feature included. For me it would be the same as paying for
> > the "send" feature in the ftp protocol, whereas "receiving" is free!

> First of all, there seems to be some confusion about Versioning in 
> WebDAV. Despite its name, WebDAV as defined per RFC2518 does not include 

> any versioning features. Those have been defined in DeltaV (RFC3253).
> 
> That is, if software package claims to support WebDAV, it's totally OK 
> for it not to implement RFC3253.
Received on Saturday, 18 March 2006 17:35:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 13:57:44 GMT