netdev - Re: [PATCH 00/05] ipv6: RFC4214 Support

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <OFF45233E5.73C392C8-ON8825738C.00298603-8825738C.002B4AB8@us.ibm.com>
Date:	Tue, 6 Nov 2007 23:54:07 -0800
From:	David Stevens <dlstevens@...ibm.com>
To:	Pekka Savola <pekkas@...core.fi>
Cc:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, Fred.L.Templin@...ing.com,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, netdev-owner@...r.kernel.org,
	yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/05] ipv6: RFC4214 Support

> give it away on this specific instance.  I'm not sure if you should 
> attribute to hidden agendas what you can explain by "doing the right 
> thing" (granted, very few companies do this which may make it suspect, 
> but still..).

Pekka,
        I'm not assuming hidden agendas here; I simply don't know what
they mean by "no license for implementers."  It doesn't say they
relinquish *all* licensing, which would be clearer if that's what they
mean. If implementers, distributors, and users are included, then
who's left that does need licensing? If that answer really is nobody,
then why bother with "for implementers."?
        So, I don't think it's a hidden agenda, I think they said what
they mean. I just don't know what they mean. :-)

                                                                +-DLS

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html