- 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 UTC