Geoff Huston wrote:
> 
> At 10:58 PM 6/22/97 +1000, Leni Mayo wrote:
> >DNAs that
> >meet the criteria are accepted into CORE (the equivalent of ADNA)
> 
> A point I feel obliged to make:
>   CORE is definitely not the functional equivalent of ADNA, as I understand
>   ADNA

Point taken.  Under that structure, CORE is the registrars, the PAB/POC
are the oversight bodies.  With the ADNA structure, the registrars are
part of the oversight body.  MMmmm, am I now beginning to understand
some of the earlier issues?

> 
> As to the rest of your posting I wonder if your proposal of:
> 
> >Any architucture, software, database designs or whatever should be
> >placed in the public domain, or under the Free Software Foundation
> >copy-left agreement or something analogous to allow everyone to read it
> >and understand that it is fair.
> 
> is reasonable given that many folk may well be relying on the quality
> and support structures for the software?
> 

I like free software because I feel that I can trust it.  If ADNA has to
develop this stuff, I don't think it should try to go into the software
business and sell the repository software to anyone else.  The best ADNA
could hope for is to make it free, hope that other repositories will
pick it up and use it, and so develop a community of users with a shared
interest in it's quality and stability.

Still, it'd be better if ADNA didn't have to develop anything.  That
would only be an option if there's a vendor out there able and willing
to sell and support a proprietary alternative (at the right price). 
Suggestions?

Leni.