On Fri, 11 May 2007 17:11:16 +0000 Paul wrote: PV> > I think this is exactly the sort of thing the IPR RFC requires for accepting
btw, the IPR RFC is 3979 <http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3979.txt> PV> i'm trying to uplevel the argument. can we make posting to ietf WG mailing PV> lists contingent on IPR disclosure, and can we make it a moderation principle PV> that IPR'd posts will simply not be published here, ever? I don't think so. 3979 does say that posting to the mailing list is an "IETF Contribution" (Section 1.c). Section 6.2 encourages 'timely disclosure' of IPR (which, to give him credit, Mr. Moreau is very good at). PV> my concern is that T-M's encumbered proposals will remove certain approaches PV> from the table. or that once we've all heard one of his ideas, he can claim PV> later that any similar ideas in our work product are based on his proposals. PV> this feels like a "mental contamination" strategy and i'm angry enough about PV> it by now that i'm willing to raise my hand and object, for once and for all. I understand, and IANAL, but I don't think that whether or not we've heard his ideas has an bearing on whether or not he can later claim an something is infringing. So, from that perspective, it's better that we know what the IPR claims are, so we can stay away from those areas if need be. Also, Section 2 of 3979 says: RFC 2026, Section 10 established three basic principles regarding the IETF dealing with claims of Intellectual Property Rights: [...] (b) the IETF following normal processes can decide to use technology for which IPR disclosures have been made if it decides that such a use is warranted (c) in order for the working group and the rest of the IETF to have the information needed to make an informed decision about the use of a particular technology, all those contributing to the working group's discussions must disclose the existence of any IPR the Contributor or other IETF participant believes Covers or may ultimately Cover the technology under discussion. And in Section 8: In general, IETF working groups prefer technologies with no known IPR claims or, for technologies with claims against them, an offer of royalty-free licensing. But IETF working groups have the discretion to adopt technology with a commitment of fair and non-discriminatory terms, or even with no licensing commitment, if they feel that this technology is superior enough to alternatives with fewer IPR claims or free licensing to outweigh the potential cost of the licenses. So, in theory, the idea could be so good that it would be accepted, IPR and all. Unlikely, I know, but possible. Given the posture in 3979, I think any attempt to censor contributions based on IPR status could likely be appealed by some arcane IETF process, wasting even more time, and likely resulting the the censorship being overruled. Like I said, I completely understand your position, but the process is supposed to be open. 3979 even explicitly acknowledges that IPR claims can be "in some cases be disingenuous, i.e., made to affect the IETF Standards Process rather than to inform." -- Robert Story SPARTA
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
