Re: draft survey form

Ruth Lang <rlang@NISC.SRI.COM> Tue, 09 April 1991 14:39 UTC

Received: by merit.edu (5.65/1123-1.0) id AA05168; Tue, 9 Apr 91 10:39:51 -0400
Received: from ws28.nisc.sri.com by merit.edu (5.65/1123-1.0) id AA05163; Tue, 9 Apr 91 10:39:44 -0400
Received: by ws28.nisc.sri.com (5.64/SRI-NISC1.1) id AA00582; Tue, 9 Apr 91 07:38:28 -0700
Message-Id: <9104091438.AA00582@ws28.nisc.sri.com>
To: Tim Howes <Tim.Howes@terminator.cc.umich.edu>
Cc: disi, rlang@NISC.SRI.COM
Subject: Re: draft survey form
In-Reply-To: Your message of Mon, 08 Apr 91 22:51:37 -0400. <9104090251.AA05717@terminator.cc.umich.edu>
Date: Tue, 09 Apr 91 07:38:25 PDT
From: Ruth Lang <rlang@NISC.SRI.COM>

Date: Mon, 08 Apr 91 22:51:37 -0400
From: Tim Howes <Tim.Howes@terminator.cc.umich.edu>;

> > 	X.500 Product and Public Domain Implementation Survey
> 
> I think the title should just read "X.500 Implementation Survey".  The
> distinction between a product and pd implementation should be mentioned
> in the description of the implementation.  Also, "public domain
> implementation" does not cover things like QUIPU, which are not,
> technically, in the public domain but are freely available (somebody
> correct me if I'm wrong).                            -- Tim

Tim,

I agree that less verbose is better.  Do you know of a coined phrase that
describes freely available but not necessarily public domain software?

Thanks,

Ruth