Chuck, The current situation is that the IPR policy is set by the WGs.
My view is that the only interesting IPR out there is the almost negligible proportion that describes something that can only be done in one particular way. The only IPR in the technology space that I am aware of that presents a genuinely compelling cost/benefit today is DRM technology. The complaint about the licensing terms would be the least of our FSF problems... But why should we care? If Lyndon LaRouche or L Ron Hubbard decide to take up an IETF cause, are we obligated to comply with the demands of their minions? I think not. -----Original Message----- From: Powers Chuck-RXCP20 [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wed 2/18/2009 5:32 PM To: Hallam-Baker, Phillip; TSG; John Levine Cc: [email protected] Subject: RE: Previous consensus on not changing patent policy (Re:Referencesto Redphone's "patent") One problem I see with that approach would be the inevitable replay of TLS-auth -> a working group agrees up front that there is patent-encumbered technology that is too useful to not include in the spec (which has happened in the IETF in the past), that group would therefore agree to follow that model, and then when they were done, a firestorm of FSF folks who had not even read the material, much less were aware of how the original decision had been reached, would assail the IETF with "the sky is falling" emails about how the world will come to an end if the IETF publishes the specification. Apart from that, it would likely be a total rats nest to try and track what work was done under what IPR agreement; allowing IPR policy decisions to be made on a WG by WG basis would, IMO, be a nightmare, except for the lawyers. Regards, Chuck ------------- Chuck Powers, Motorola, Inc phone: 512-427-7261 mobile: 512-576-0008 ________________________________ From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Hallam-Baker, Phillip Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2009 4:18 PM To: TSG; John Levine Cc: [email protected] Subject: RE: Previous consensus on not changing patent policy (Re:Referencesto Redphone's "patent") Do you think that the IETF has changed direction though? Methinks not. This is one of those issues where there is a faction that will defend the status quo regardless of the flaws that are revealed. They will wait till the end of the discussion and announce that there is no consensus to do anything differently so they must win. I really do not understand the justification for not allowing a WG to state the IPR policy that will apply during the charter process. If we are going to have people volunteer time an effort to create a standard they have the right to know at the start whether the result will be encumbered or if one particular party gets to set up a toll booth. In fact there are two very different status quos. There is the defacto status quo and there is the de jure status quo. And it is rather interesting that on every one of my pet IETF peeves, my position is the defacto status quo and it is only the official status quo that is out of line. Officially a working group does not need to set an IPR standard up front. In practice every working group in any part of the IETF I participate in has to deliver a standard that is compliant with the W3C policy that every essential part of the spec be implementable without using encumbered technology. Attempts to do otherwise are totally futile. I guess it is possible that things are different outside the security, applications and operations side, but I find it very hard to believe that a necessary to implement technology at the Internet level could be encumbered without creating a blogstorm of slashdot proportions. Officially the specs are in the obsolete text format In practice they are written in XML and the engineers implementing them use either the HTML version or buy the O'Rielly nutshell book. Officially there are three stages in the standards process In practice there are two stages. I really wish it was possible to have a discussion on this topic without getting condescending lectures as to why it is absolutely unthinkable to change the official status quo when folk are already doing exactly what I have been suggesting for five years or more. -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] on behalf of TSG Sent: Tue 2/17/2009 5:42 PM To: John Levine Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: Previous consensus on not changing patent policy (Re: Referencesto Redphone's "patent") John Levine wrote: >> But are the 1,000 or so emails in recent days from the FSF campaign >> not a loud enough hum to recognize that our IPR policy is out of >> tune? >> > > Are you really saying that all it takes is a mob motivated by an > misleading screed to make the IETF change direction? > Yes - exactly that. > >From the sample of the FSF letters I read, many of the people writing > didn't know the difference between Redphone and Red Hat, and if as > many as two of them had even looked at the draft or IPR disclosure in > question, it'd be a lot. > > The FSF's absolutist position on patents was set in stone 20 years > ago. I don't see why we should be impressed if they occasionally > throw a handful of pebbles at us. > > R's, > John > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > > _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
