I can’t think of any legal trickiness per se, but somewhere along the line I got the impression that OASIS did not designate reference implementations. (I could be totally wrong about that.) In my experience, saying that something is a reference implementation usually implies that the standards body holding the specification has some process in place by which certain implementations achieve that status. Or maybe I’ve misunderstood what you mean by “reference server”?
From: paho-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:paho-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ian Craggs
Sent: September-19-13 6:50 AM
To: General development discussions for paho project
Subject: [paho-dev] Mosquitto project proposal
I've responded to all the comments on the proposal draft. How does everyone feel about it now?
I added this statement in the scope section:
Mosquitto adheres to the standards as closely as possible, so it may be used as a reference server.
I'm not sure about the second clause of that sentence, whether it's a good idea or not. I thought about adding "in its default configuration", to allow for non-standard behaviour to be optional. I'm not sure whether stating the aim to be a reference server would open us up to any legal trickiness.