[Date Prev][Date Next]
Dear Pierangelo, (dear Kurt),
first of all my special thanks belong to both of you for your
contribution to the on going discussions. Secondly I want to take the
opportunity just right now to clarify that I do not agree to your idea
or suggestion to extend the copyright in direction of a
Based on my analysis of your surprisingly fast submitted code sample I
came to the following conclusion and justification regarding my decision
Last but not least I would have appreciated it if you would have
contacted me *before* changing the code and not to mention my copyright
notice. Thanks Kurt for your intervention.
Besides this, as time, discussion and development has continuously moved
on (even before your kind of "uncoordinated emergency submit") it seems
to me that your sudden sample code does not cover any of my primary
intentions already rudimentary contained in "now.c" and mentioned during
- there's no kind of inheritance of matching rules (all are directly
associated to generalizedTime / CSN)
- additionally the nowOrLater *and* the nowOrEarlier-rules are
associated simultaneously to one and the same attribute (what makes no
difference for single-valued attribute and thus could be done. On the
other hand this leads to false positively reported valid but indeed
invalid entries in case of multi-valued attributes - details see below).
- you have not implemented any sort of possibility to allow the
definition of separate "syntactically standalone" attributes (derived
from generalizedTime/CSN, by independent syntax) to limit LE/GE
filtering for both dead center attributes. (limiting search access using
ACLs would obviously not work because the extensible search needs to be
- multi-valued upper dead center timestamp attributes can not be handled
correctly by your code. I have not investigated in deep but it is clear
to me that in case of multiple values whereas one or more timestamp/CSN
values are in the past, while at least one is in the future leads to the
above mentioned false positive reporting in your code.
- It seems to me that you have not tested the behavior of your suggested
code properly in this short period of time (your tests have only seem to
cover createTimestamp - which btw do not make any sense in concern to
now.c's common intention in case the createTimestamp's value has not
been faked ;-)).
- as your code changes significantly changes the behavior and intention
of now.c your submit also lacks any kind of documentation (besides the
code, which I had to analyze first).
In my opinion your submit sadly does not represent a very useful
enhancement nor a functional extension (in the sense of the original
goal of now.c) which could be integrated without major adaptations.
That's the reason why I'm currently not see any reason to share my
copyright notice. Nevertheless, as I've already told you before the
discussion with you have always been very helpful for me so I've added
you willingly to the acknowledgments section. I hope you understand my
explanations and it will be fine for you. Of course I'm available and
ready for further technical discussions ...
Last but not least and from lessons learn: I think some kind of a formal
specification (external to my head ;-)) would be very helpful to
understand the design ideas, decisions as well as the new chances (and
possible limitations) now.c introduces into LDAP. One or perhaps even
more related I-Ds are currently a work in progress here at my side.
I've uploaded a new version of now.c (as tgz because it contains various
files, e.g. a sample schema in ldif- and schema-format for easier
testing and perhaps as a basis for on going discussions). I hope I've
correctly updated the IPR statement according my above expressed
intention and according the needs of the OpenLDAP foundation. Kurt could
you please have a look on it again?
The updated version can be obtained from here:
Thanks a lot and best regards
-------- Original-Nachricht --------
Betreff: Re: [OFFLINE] Re: (ITS#6247)
Datum: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 08:54:35 -0700
Von: Kurt Zeilenga <kurt@OpenLDAP.org>
On Aug 13, 2009, at 8:28 AM, email@example.com wrote:
> Daniel (Kurt),
> (Note to Kurt: as there is no affiliation between Daniel and me, we
> not coordinate anything, so we'll probably better do it now and
> start from
> scratch, instead of polluting the ITS).
This needs to be done in two steps.
1) Daniel needs to address notices issues in his submission.
2) You need to address the notices issues in your derived submission.
Daniel should follow the instructions I provide, and then you should
follow the instructions I provide. These steps are simple, straight
forward, and have a clear result.
> I suggest Daniel evaluates the line I'm proposing
No. This in no way fulfills the Foundation requirements.
The line you are asking Daniel to evaluate is not a formal notice.
You actually failed to met his license, which requires you to include
a copy of his copyright notice in your work. You copied only an
informal acknowledgement, not his copyright notice and license
> and, based on the file I
> submitted, formalizes a definitive patch with appropriate copyrights
> submits it along the guidelines of the OpenLDAP foundation.
Your submission doesn't met the guidelines of the Foundation as it
also doesn't include a notice of origin nor asserts your copyright,
and worse, it failed to met the copying requirement Daniel placed on
his submission (that his notice be included in copies).