Re: [vwrap] Activity for charter: Proxies, Gateways, BSD, GPL...

Dzonatas Sol <> Wed, 11 May 2011 23:07 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8D97E0696 for <>; Wed, 11 May 2011 16:07:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9aX5TbuQCZyy for <>; Wed, 11 May 2011 16:07:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 253ABE06DA for <>; Wed, 11 May 2011 16:07:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by pzk5 with SMTP id 5so610013pzk.31 for <>; Wed, 11 May 2011 16:07:45 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to :cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=tGjGXoeleouyeWhZB3rQ1xdMFLx1XvOUodhiCqnNFvg=; b=wolysj4j+tPn5CuveOqY+qm0UFsVlWBaYzRNipy47Zh0eqEJ3byp19rQ/BtjcjA75n PZ1z8UU2a48dTodHPnZ2rEv/b93MP/1OKPjC+Ssa84kgt1t+V8Ee13bWeMZViGJKyoJ6 8bunspU7sphpCZvOrF1yu3XMOCraH0kVRz4Q4=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=aF8ktQBfCFyj02a7BvjvK587i+0zVlaUz6z76jFzvxg06R+Ii7mLBh4QKGKyLvXGGD r9NDfO4QneZiUbsSLE9HjglXduwoes7N6XwxI0Wy7/EuVTl/veYqscZXv+bK4HJRYF/C WQPAlPCR0Ff3DrB6FVziBiSlur7gLQWI/zLNk=
Received: by with SMTP id h1mr14053126pbh.63.1305155264048; Wed, 11 May 2011 16:07:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) by with ESMTPS id p2sm264013pbq.6.2011. (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 11 May 2011 16:07:43 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 16:06:49 -0700
From: Dzonatas Sol <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv: Gecko/20110307 Icedove/3.0.11
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Dzonatas Sol <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [vwrap] Activity for charter: Proxies, Gateways, BSD, GPL...
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Virtual World Region Agent Protocol - IETF working group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 23:07:46 -0000

I should also note here something that may be unfamiliar in context 
versus content in accessibility issues. There are now not only kinetic 
devices that can view and gather motion data as there are also external 
headgear devices that sense areas of brain activity data. Those devices 
are one the consumer market now. The point here is the capability to 
communicate in other forms of speech or mime without spoken words, and, 
yes, we can achieve independence.

Let me know if that sounds quantum far.

On 05/11/2011 01:22 PM, Dzonatas Sol wrote:
> I'm fascinated with XML2RFC editor more for arithmetic simulation than 
> just virtual land farms. They both can lead into accessible arithmetic 
> computation. This has been quite the mushroom piece, yet there is no 
> easy way to just hand people the experience of the requirements 
> between BSD code and GPL code, and present all the ramifications with 
> given experience, and how to navigate back the peace in standards.
> I "think" we should limit VWRAP to proxies and gateways. With that, we 
> should also assume original assets are not transferred upon request. 
> If not, how to achieve that goal.
> Note: BSD versus GPL debates are out of scope (and so is any anxiety 
> induction of the same effect).
> As Morgaine pointed out, there is disparity between the groups, so 
> without prejudice I picked these two in order for us to straw-man the 
> flow between IETF-VWRAP-BSD and IETF-VWRAP-GPL, and document that flow 
> with XML2RFC. We are not dumb about this, so please no .
> The flow of BSD to GPL is easier than GPL to BSD. I don't think that 
> is as obvious, however ICANN's recent move to allow trademarks to 
> overtake .net domains does provide useful means to accomplish that 
> goal even within RFC nature.
> Simply, for example, we can proxy or gateway the email address 
> "agent@regionĀ©siteā„¢" to by default from ICANN's 
> spawned flow. This provides backwards compatibility with plain text 
> RFCs and forward compatibility with XML2RFC.
> If we also include arithmetic atomicals formatter (or such arithmetic 
> patterns) that 3D games have taken for granted then we can cancel 
> anxiety in the above two flows.
> Imagine two media regions. The first media region allows only BSD 
> content with ambiguous context. The second media region allows only 
> GPL context with default GPL content.
> Content-Type: Message; license=...
> If we write XML2RFC.NET then we can quantize the fallacies of the 
> proxies and gateways between the two media types, and achieve similar 
> affect of the previous charter. We need some kind of default intent 
> for non-arithmetic flows that do not apply to the above for the first 
> obvious fallacy, which may be summarized as for polymerization of 
> outstanding license issues.
> No date set for this kind of milestone. I figure any BSD to GPL proxy 
> and can default the "Expiration:" date with exceptions upon trademarks.
> Does that make the economy easier?

--- ---
Web Development, Software Engineering, Virtual Reality, Consultant