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

Dzonatas Sol <dzonatas@gmail.com> Thu, 12 May 2011 01:35 UTC

Return-Path: <dzonatas@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: vwrap@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: vwrap@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91545E0873 for <vwrap@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 May 2011 18:35:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QjAqwyVIxioy for <vwrap@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 May 2011 18:35:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-px0-f179.google.com (mail-px0-f179.google.com [209.85.212.179]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5EA8E06FD for <vwrap@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 May 2011 18:35:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by pxi2 with SMTP id 2so670644pxi.38 for <vwrap@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 May 2011 18:35:07 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=GWZXuF0eq5GnQi63pjjRZSs+6+MLWNLyt/Dbzpr6z1M=; b=yGpJFTpZ1aYj+kUjbhsF4/1GzOACCaYGx4JVhfjz9d0gyT5T/A+6SpXFv82EAvtmUh 4NA+a0qjCF9eGcfZG5mDCcF2Vm3cgbk6gauF5bdYUqjSi2Ai4NGrt5FrTj1qAA/FJPV/ e+xhJesolgLJfApCQUE++s7fLVQZPg9xzNY+E=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=yE9VBAlMdgHZhBmbmNUp+84Mdv/XendohJ8BZbS+ZT6wZsS/sXyGxO3iW+vPa6Lg/J DvzK2tvgl2HTC8Yc1fg1QJpP0hHg41fBnNwCf6qH9mkYkbO4/Nrr80zqEMZz2ee+vqyi xyMASCbwfUpFPr22faEndpnQ6+1hgSZpwTFRU=
Received: by 10.142.120.15 with SMTP id s15mr5672087wfc.141.1305164107421; Wed, 11 May 2011 18:35:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.0.50] ([70.133.70.225]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id t9sm334896pbo.3.2011.05.11.18.35.03 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 11 May 2011 18:35:06 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4DCB390A.7070807@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 18:34:02 -0700
From: Dzonatas Sol <dzonatas@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.16) Gecko/20110307 Icedove/3.0.11
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "vwrap@ietf.org" <vwrap@ietf.org>
References: <4DCAEFFE.9080405@gmail.com> <4DCB1689.4070507@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <4DCB1689.4070507@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: Re: [vwrap] Activity for charter: Proxies, Gateways, BSD, GPL...
X-BeenThere: vwrap@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Virtual World Region Agent Protocol - IETF working group <vwrap.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/vwrap>, <mailto:vwrap-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/vwrap>
List-Post: <mailto:vwrap@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:vwrap-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vwrap>, <mailto:vwrap-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 01:35:08 -0000

Others questioned me about this activity off-list.

Please, considered that people do not like to explain the full scale of 
disability issues over and over to every incidence of new layman that 
have not experienced such disabilities themselves (or aware of their 
own). People write standards for engineering quality, and it seems 
people often get that process backwards.

This is why I suggest the XML2RFC.NET as an example to help in this 
issue. We can use our own viewers and tools to lexically analyze 
standards and the process. We don't assume one size fits all, so I use 
the oxymoron "poly-scale" as something exists that best fits meaning on 
any scale.

Somehow, I get the common complaint that two monomers do not belong in 
physical simulations. I disagree because this is the ordinary world and 
not some metaphysical game.

On 05/11/2011 04:06 PM, Dzonatas Sol wrote:
> 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 user@region.site.net 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?
>>
>
>


-- 
--- https://twitter.com/Dzonatas_Sol ---
Web Development, Software Engineering, Virtual Reality, Consultant