Re: Shuffle those deck chairs!

[Vernon Schryver]

> From: "Eric S. Raymond" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> Your two people to go to on this would be RMS (representing the FSF)
> or me (representing the OSI); between us I believe we can speak for
> over 95% of the community.

I hate it when elected politicans presume to speak for me.  I will not
sit quietly and let self-appointed individuals try the same.  *DO NOT*
tell me to my face that you are negotiating on my behalf or even just
for 95% of the other people who write or have written software that
might be called "open" by virtue of being freely redistributable and
in use by lots of people until you can can point to the results of a
real plebiscite.  Even then, you won't be speaking for me until I
personally and explicitly say so.

If you and Mr. Stallman want to speak for your respective organizations,
then peachy.  If you want to speak based on what you consider your own
great experience and deep thoughts on the issues, then that's also
good.  If you want to pretend that you speak for me out of my earshot,
then I'll do my best to not hear.  Just don't stand in front of me
telling me that you have my best interests at heart and that I must
trust you.

It's been many years since I came to expect such behavior from the
FSF.  I had a better image of/delusions about the OSI.  I guess I
should know better.  Just as the self-named Internet Society attracts
people far more interested in politics and telling me how I should
view the Internet than designing, implementing, deploying, and maintaining
what I think of as network stuff, any self-described open software
organization will be run by people telling me whether I'm really writing
free code and where my best interests really lie.


The appareance of such stuff in proximity to the IETF administrative
reoganization...uh...negotiations is not really irony.  Such things
tend to attract each other.


Vernon Schryver[EMAIL PROTECTED]

___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Shuffle those deck chairs!

[scott bradner]

> Jeff Schiller was the second Security AD, who started around 1994 or so.
> I forget exactly when.

see http://www.ietf.org/iesg_mem.html

Scott

___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Shuffle those deck chairs!

[James M Galvin]

On Fri, 15 Oct 2004, Paul Vixie wrote:

especially the note from steve kent (then Security AD).

Steve Crocker was a Security AD (and the first one for that matter).
Steve Kent was never a Security AD.  Steve Kent served on the IAB for a
very long time, preceding all Security ADs, although I don't believe he
was still on the IAB in 1994.

Jeff Schiller was the second Security AD, who started around 1994 or so.
I forget exactly when.

Jim

___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Shuffle those deck chairs!

[shogunx]

On Fri, 15 Oct 2004, Eric S. Raymond wrote:

> Paul Vixie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > eric is saying that the previous situation
> > whereby a draft author surrendered the IPR before RFC publication was better.
> > various others have said "but what if the IPR terms try to distinguish
> > between commercial and noncommercial?"  my observations are (1) there are
> > ways to do "open source" without this distinction, and (2) authors cannot
> > be expected warrant their IPR surrender in any case.
>
> In fact, the *only* way to do open source is without this distinction.
>
> I actually wish it were otherwise, but my wishes have no effect on the
> logic of the situation.

Why do you say that?

The mail system could fork.  Then it would become social darwinism of the
emails.  Someone may even reimplement uucp.  It would be email chaos for a
bit.


> --
>   http://www.catb.org/~esr/";>Eric S. Raymond
>
> ___
> Ietf mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>

sleekfreak pirate broadcast
http://sleekfreak.ath.cx:81/


___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

RE: Shuffle those deck chairs!

[RL 'Bob' Morgan]

On Fri, 15 Oct 2004, Brian Rosen wrote:
This text does not seem to cover what we usually encounter in protocol 
development.  What happens is that you claim a patent that would be 
infringed by implementing the protocol.  Another company has its own 
patent that it also claims would be infringed by implementing the 
protocol.  You are willing to grant a worldwide, royalty free license to 
the patent to anyone, including the other company, so long as the other 
company doesn't try to force you to pay a royalty or take out a more 
restrictive license to his patent.

Take a look at:
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/IPR/DYNAMICSOFT-SIMPLE.txt
for an example.
I'm trying to understand the distinction you're making here.  A licensor 
who distributes some code using, say, the Apache 2.0 license, gives (in 
section 3) a patent license to those using the code, but terminates that 
license for parties that initiate patent litigation of their own about the 
code.  An IETF IPR disclosure such as the one you cite above isn't a 
software license, but it seems like the intent is exactly the same.  Can 
you clarify?

(Actually, the Dynamicsoft statement is much broader, since it says "a 
patent or other intellectual property right", meaning that if I sue 
Dynamicsoft for violating my trademark I lose my patent license.  This 
seems like a gratuitous mixing of different IPR domains, but I'll bet 
NOUIAL, so I'll stop there.)

 - RL "Bob"
___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Shuffle those deck chairs!

[shogunx]

On Fri, 15 Oct 2004, Paul Vixie wrote:

> > ...  notwithstanding, how can a specification be considered a standard
> > if over half of the operators on the planet refuse to deploy it
> > because of patent/licence issues.
>
> i can't understand why this matters.

this matters as concerns the defacto sphere of influence and acceptance of
the ietf as the authoritative body regarding how the internet works.  both
groups, the ietf and the open-source/free software community, are working
towards the same goal, with similar methodologies.  from experience, it
seems this simple:  if you want widespread use of a technology, you give
it away, and tell people how it works.  this is essentially what has
happened with everything the ietf has ever produced, and hence the
exponential growth rate of said technology.  you will see a similar trend
with the growth of open source.  and don't forget that both groups arose
from similar sets of people, who were, in effect, doing everything they
could to figure out how to make things work.  if what is created in such
openness of process is spoiled by one guy saying to the rest of us "i know
how it works, cause i made it, and you must pay, and you still cannot know
how it works" then the whole process has failed.

> if ietf were to change its policies
> so that only "open technology" was allowed in the standards,

could you cite some examples of closed technology in the standards having
success in the real world?

> there would
> still be patent fights (both from submarines and ships-in-the-night).
>

that sounds like a poem.

> since the majority of those within the sound of my voice were not party to
> the RSA-vs-DSA wars which characterized the early years of DNSSEC, i've
> made a small archive available on the web.  you should really look at it,
> especially the note from steve kent (then Security AD).  it's in "digest"
> format rather than "mime" format at .
>

it seems to me steve was trying to move around patent/royalty encumerances
by using other technologies.

> ___
> Ietf mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>

sleekfreak pirate broadcast
http://sleekfreak.ath.cx:81/


___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Shuffle those deck chairs!

[Eric S. Raymond]

Sam Hartman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> This is one of the many reasons why I think the free software
> community needs to get together and decide what it wants *before*
> coming to the IETF.  

Your two people to go to on this would be RMS (representing the FSF)
or me (representing the OSI); between us I believe we can speak for
over 95% of the community.

I know FSF's position; if and when it differs substantially from OSI's
I'll tell you.  On IETF-relevant issues substantive differences are
quite unlikely -- the main difference between these organizations 
is of style and propaganda.

(Some FSF partisans deny this, insisting there are deep philosophical
issues dividing FSF from OSI.  OSI does not reciprocate this belief,
and in any case the imputed differences are not relevant to the IETF's
concerns.)
-- 
http://www.catb.org/~esr/";>Eric S. Raymond

___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Shuffle those deck chairs!

[Eric S. Raymond]

RL 'Bob' Morgan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Fri, 15 Oct 2004, Brian Rosen wrote:
> >You guys don't have a problem with the "defensive suspension"/"no first 
> >use" clauses, do you?
> >
> >Is there a "preferred" wording for it?
> 
> I think you'll find virtually identical wording on this topic in several 
> well-known licenses:
> 
>   http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
>   http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/MPL-1.1.html
>   http://www.eclipse.org/legal/cpl-v10.html
>   http://www.opensource.org/licenses/afl-2.1.php

Indeed.  The language in these licenses represents the community consensus
about patent termination.  Yes, there really is one; the official line of the
Debian project is an outlier, in dispute within Debian itself.
-- 
http://www.catb.org/~esr/";>Eric S. Raymond

___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Shuffle those deck chairs!

[Eric S. Raymond]

Paul Vixie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> eric is saying that the previous situation
> whereby a draft author surrendered the IPR before RFC publication was better.
> various others have said "but what if the IPR terms try to distinguish
> between commercial and noncommercial?"  my observations are (1) there are
> ways to do "open source" without this distinction, and (2) authors cannot
> be expected warrant their IPR surrender in any case.

In fact, the *only* way to do open source is without this distinction.

I actually wish it were otherwise, but my wishes have no effect on the
logic of the situation.
-- 
http://www.catb.org/~esr/";>Eric S. Raymond

___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Shuffle those deck chairs!

[Paul Vixie]

> ...  notwithstanding, how can a specification be considered a standard
> if over half of the operators on the planet refuse to deploy it
> because of patent/licence issues.

i can't understand why this matters.  if ietf were to change its policies
so that only "open technology" was allowed in the standards, there would
still be patent fights (both from submarines and ships-in-the-night).

since the majority of those within the sound of my voice were not party to
the RSA-vs-DSA wars which characterized the early years of DNSSEC, i've
made a small archive available on the web.  you should really look at it,
especially the note from steve kent (then Security AD).  it's in "digest"
format rather than "mime" format at .

___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

RE: Shuffle those deck chairs!

[Thomas Gal]

Agreed,
I'm never using the term IP again unless it's internet protocol.
What I meant indeed was patents in the context of software.
I Should NOT have made the assumption in this crowd, though I think
everyone agrees, that nobody here is really talking about trademarks (which
obviously is about reputation from the holders perspective) and
copyrights(i.e. stealing code directly).

-Tom

> -Original Message-
> From: Dean Anderson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Sent: Friday, October 15, 2004 12:13 PM
> To: Ted Faber
> Cc: Iljitsch van Beijnum; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Shuffle those deck chairs!
> 
> There are very good arguments as to why "intellectual property" and
> derivatives should be avoided as a term.   One should talk 
> instead about 
> patents, copyrights and trademarks instead. The issues 
> represented by the three are substantially different among 
> the three and they can't be successfully generalized.
> 
> To illustrate the inappriateness of the "intellectual 
> property" as a term, all we have to do is examine the current 
> state of patents, copyrights, and
> trademarks:  It is unlikely that Patents are on the way out. 
> It may be that software patents are on the way out. It may be 
> that biotech patents are on the way out.  It is unlikely the 
> copyrights are on the way. It may be that copyright abuse may 
> be limited.  It is unlikely that trademarks are on the way out.
> 
>   --Dean
> 
> 
> On Tue, 12 Oct 2004, Ted Faber wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, Oct 12, 2004 at 09:44:02PM +0200, Iljitsch van 
> Beijnum wrote:
> > > On 12-okt-04, at 19:36, Thomas Gal wrote:
> > > 
> > > >and IP is on it's way out
> > > 
> > > Please note that in the IETF the letters "IP" first and foremost 
> > > mean "Internet Protocol". To use them for something else 
> is confusing.
> > 
> > To forestall the question, when communicating with the IETF one 
> > shortens "intellectual property" to "IPR."  You can pretend it 
> > abbrieviates "Intellectual Property Rights" or 
> "Intellectual PRoperty."
> > It replaces both phrases in discourse and writing.
> > 
> > 
> 
> -- 
> Av8 Internet   Prepared to pay a premium for better service?
> www.av8.net faster, more reliable, better service
> 617 344 9000   
> 
> 


___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Shuffle those deck chairs!

[Iljitsch van Beijnum]

On 15-okt-04, at 15:46, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
MMI's primary intention is to protect the research investment that has 
allowed them to build faster and more accurate cheese graters than the 
competition.
[...]
Are there any IPR terms that MMI could offer that would meet these 
goals while also allowing the WRAPCTL protocol to be implemented in 
OSS implementations?  If we could find that middle ground, I think it 
would be very valuable to the IETF and to the OSS community.
Maybe I'm being naive here, but wouldn't it be possible for NMI to give 
away a free license to use their patent in the WRAPCTL protocol only? 
In copyright this is done all the time (although seldom for free): when 
I buy a DVD, I get to watch its contents at home, but the license 
doesn't allow me to show the movie in a theater or broadcast it over 
the air.

In cases where the patent has a broader use than as part of a network 
protocol this is actually good for the patent holder as now many 
companies will be implementing it, which can easily lead to reuse of 
said implementation for another purpose in which case a paid license 
would be required.

This doesn't solve all open source issues, but it should make the 
problem more manageable as the code that implements this protocol in 
question can be reused by anyone, just as long as it's only used for 
this specific protocol.

___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Shuffle those deck chairs!

[Pekka Savola]

On Fri, 15 Oct 2004, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> Pekka Savola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Hmm.. Being an OSS/FSF enthusiast myself, I'm not sure if the last
> > requirement, about code re-use, is a strict requirement.  Sure, it
> > would be nice if there wasn't such a thing, but it would seem to be
> > better to get the first two points and fail at the third than get
> > nothing at all.
> 
> Think harder.  The problem with area-of-application rules is isomorphic
> to the "commercial/noncommercial" problem.  The really nasty cases are
> near service libraries.

Maybe you should spell this out.

For example, service libraries need not be a problem.  Consider a
service library which infringes a patent on SIP, which is to be
restricted to interoperability with the SIP protocol.  There is no
issue if the service library is only useful with SIP, because all the
use cases of the service library (excluding looking at the code and
taking away the code) would be OK by the policy.

Obviously, there is a problem if a patent claims to invent something
commonplace such as 'xml', and grants its use only for the purpose of
IETF standards or a specific standard.  But I'm not sure if I recall
something like that.

-- 
Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oykingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings


___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Shuffle those deck chairs!

[scott bradner]

> eric is saying that the previous situation
> whereby a draft author surrendered the IPR before RFC publication was better.

that has never been a requirement

Scott

___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Shuffle those deck chairs!

[scott bradner]

> I do think that some patent holders want to make their technology
> available to the free software community.  I believe that if the free
> software community agreed on what it wanted, it would be reasonable
> for the IETF to pass that along to IPR holders as information to
> consider when drafting proposed licenses.

I think that would be a Good Thing

Scott

___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Shuffle those deck chairs!

[Dean Anderson]

There are very good arguments as to why "intellectual property" and
derivatives should be avoided as a term.   One should talk instead about 
patents, copyrights and trademarks instead. The issues represented by the 
three are substantially different among the three and they can't be 
successfully generalized.

To illustrate the inappriateness of the "intellectual property" as a term,
all we have to do is examine the current state of patents, copyrights, and
trademarks:  It is unlikely that Patents are on the way out. It may be
that software patents are on the way out. It may be that biotech patents
are on the way out.  It is unlikely the copyrights are on the way. It may
be that copyright abuse may be limited.  It is unlikely that trademarks
are on the way out.

--Dean


On Tue, 12 Oct 2004, Ted Faber wrote:

> On Tue, Oct 12, 2004 at 09:44:02PM +0200, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> > On 12-okt-04, at 19:36, Thomas Gal wrote:
> > 
> > >and IP is on it's way out
> > 
> > Please note that in the IETF the letters "IP" first and foremost mean 
> > "Internet Protocol". To use them for something else is confusing.
> 
> To forestall the question, when communicating with the IETF one
> shortens "intellectual property" to "IPR."  You can pretend it
> abbrieviates "Intellectual Property Rights" or "Intellectual PRoperty."
> It replaces both phrases in discourse and writing.
> 
> 

-- 
Av8 Internet   Prepared to pay a premium for better service?
www.av8.net faster, more reliable, better service
617 344 9000   



___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Shuffle those deck chairs!

[shogunx]

On Fri, 15 Oct 2004, Paul Vixie wrote:

> > How can we not adopt some manner of "open source" attitude, Paul?  That
> > has been the basic methodology of the IETF for some time.  Otherwise, we
> > would be paying for every DNS lookup.

as with this rediculous sender-id issue, which is a blatant attempt by a
proven illegally operating monopoly to seize yet another part of the
worlds infrastructure with their "i stole it, but its mine, not yours,
pay me" mentality.  notwithstanding, how can a specification be considered
a standard if over half of the operators on the planet refuse to deploy it
because of patent/licence issues.

>
> well, i am not the expert on this, but the discussion has to do with IPR
> and change control being transferred to IETF as a side effect of the
> publication of drafts and rfc's.  historically there have been at least
> two approaches: (1) demand IPR surrender; (2) require IPR disclosure.  in
> the second (and i believe, current) situation, draft authors are required
> to state their IPR terms, and RFC readers can infer whatever they like from
> the absence of surrender.  margaret is saying that sometimes the IPR can
> be contested by someone other than the author, and later than RFC publication,
> through no fault of anybody's.

people can say whatever they choose.  if someone wants to write
proprietary protcols, go ahead.  thats fine.  just not as part of the
IETF, with the intent to inject corporate control into the open standards
of the internet.  in order to maintain global interoperability, and prevent
the potential for abuse of monopoly position inherent in proprietary
software, patent encumerments and other such mechanisms must not be allow
to encumber the codebase at any level.


> eric is saying that the previous situation
> whereby a draft author surrendered the IPR before RFC publication was better.
> various others have said "but what if the IPR terms try to distinguish
> between commercial and noncommercial?"  my observations are (1) there are
> ways to do "open source" without this distinction, and (2) authors cannot
> be expected warrant their IPR surrender in any case.
>

the authors must know that the work they indulge in contributes to the
global commons that makes up the structure of the internet.  IMHO any
attempt to limit or restrict the process and methodology that the IETF has
created through hard experience of a great many years should fall upon very
deaf ears, and be passed off in a "no thank you, we would not like to purchase
your software" attitude.

> it's a lot more complicated than whether you have to pay for DNS lookups.
>

right, but if a similar mechanism as in question here were part of the
dns, then we would be paying for every lookup, and all of redmond would be
laughing.


Scott


> re:
>
> > > > ...
> > > > The open-source community figured out by about 1997-1998 that there is no
> > > > way to discriminate between "commercial" and "noncommercial" activity
> > > > that does not create fatal uncertainties about who has what rights at
> > > > what times.  When you add the problems of mixing software with licenses
> > > > having *different versions* of such a distinction the downside gets even
> > > > worse.
> > > >
> > > > Thus, the licensing guidelines of both the OSI and FSF forbid attempts at
> > > > this.
> > >
> > > This only matters if you intend to limit redistribution.  The older BSD
> > > licenseware limits only liability, not redistribution, and thus doesn't
> > > care about details like commerce.  This could be a lesson for IETF if we
> > > really are going to address IPR issues in the boilerplate by adopting any
> > > kind of "open source" attitude.
> > > --
> > > Paul Vixie
> > >
> > > ___
> > > Ietf mailing list
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> > >
> >
> > sleekfreak pirate broadcast
> > http://sleekfreak.ath.cx:81/
> >
>
> ___
> Ietf mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>

sleekfreak pirate broadcast
http://sleekfreak.ath.cx:81/


___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Shuffle those deck chairs!

[Eric S. Raymond]

Pekka Savola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Hmm.. Being an OSS/FSF enthusiast myself, I'm not sure if the last
> requirement, about code re-use, is a strict requirement.  Sure, it
> would be nice if there wasn't such a thing, but it would seem to be
> better to get the first two points and fail at the third than get
> nothing at all.

Think harder.  The problem with area-of-application rules is isomorphic
to the "commercial/noncommercial" problem.  The really nasty cases are
near service libraries.
-- 
http://www.catb.org/~esr/";>Eric S. Raymond

___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Shuffle those deck chairs!

[shogunx]

On Fri, 15 Oct 2004, Sam Hartman wrote:

> > "Brian" == Brian Rosen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Brian> You guys don't have a problem with the "defensive
> Brian> suspension"/"no first use" clauses, do you?
>
> There is not consensus in the free software community on this issue.
> I believe the Open Source Initiative (opensource.org) is OK with such
> clauses.  Debian (debian.org) is not although there are some of us
> within Debian who question this decision.  I don't know what the FSF's
> stance is on this issue.
>
> This is one of the many reasons why I think the free software
> community needs to get together and decide what it wants *before*
> coming to the IETF.
>

The free/open source software communities and the IETF are not mutually
exclusive sets.

>
> Again, I'm not proposing that the free software community can change
> the IETF's IPR policies We had that debate recently and it's clear
> there is not consensus to change it.
>
> I do think that some patent holders want to make their technology
> available to the free software community.  I believe that if the free
> software community agreed on what it wanted, it would be reasonable
> for the IETF to pass that along to IPR holders as information to
> consider when drafting proposed licenses.
>
> --Sam
>
>
> ___
> Ietf mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>

sleekfreak pirate broadcast
http://sleekfreak.ath.cx:81/


___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Shuffle those deck chairs!

[Paul Vixie]

> How can we not adopt some manner of "open source" attitude, Paul?  That
> has been the basic methodology of the IETF for some time.  Otherwise, we
> would be paying for every DNS lookup.

well, i am not the expert on this, but the discussion has to do with IPR
and change control being transferred to IETF as a side effect of the
publication of drafts and rfc's.  historically there have been at least
two approaches: (1) demand IPR surrender; (2) require IPR disclosure.  in
the second (and i believe, current) situation, draft authors are required
to state their IPR terms, and RFC readers can infer whatever they like from
the absence of surrender.  margaret is saying that sometimes the IPR can
be contested by someone other than the author, and later than RFC publication,
through no fault of anybody's.  eric is saying that the previous situation
whereby a draft author surrendered the IPR before RFC publication was better.
various others have said "but what if the IPR terms try to distinguish
between commercial and noncommercial?"  my observations are (1) there are
ways to do "open source" without this distinction, and (2) authors cannot
be expected warrant their IPR surrender in any case.

it's a lot more complicated than whether you have to pay for DNS lookups.

re:

> > > ...
> > > The open-source community figured out by about 1997-1998 that there is no
> > > way to discriminate between "commercial" and "noncommercial" activity
> > > that does not create fatal uncertainties about who has what rights at
> > > what times.  When you add the problems of mixing software with licenses
> > > having *different versions* of such a distinction the downside gets even
> > > worse.
> > >
> > > Thus, the licensing guidelines of both the OSI and FSF forbid attempts at
> > > this.
> >
> > This only matters if you intend to limit redistribution.  The older BSD
> > licenseware limits only liability, not redistribution, and thus doesn't
> > care about details like commerce.  This could be a lesson for IETF if we
> > really are going to address IPR issues in the boilerplate by adopting any
> > kind of "open source" attitude.
> > --
> > Paul Vixie
> >
> > ___
> > Ietf mailing list
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> >
> 
> sleekfreak pirate broadcast
> http://sleekfreak.ath.cx:81/
> 

___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Shuffle those deck chairs!

[Sam Hartman]

> "Brian" == Brian Rosen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

Brian> You guys don't have a problem with the "defensive
Brian> suspension"/"no first use" clauses, do you?

There is not consensus in the free software community on this issue.
I believe the Open Source Initiative (opensource.org) is OK with such
clauses.  Debian (debian.org) is not although there are some of us
within Debian who question this decision.  I don't know what the FSF's
stance is on this issue.

This is one of the many reasons why I think the free software
community needs to get together and decide what it wants *before*
coming to the IETF.  


Again, I'm not proposing that the free software community can change
the IETF's IPR policies We had that debate recently and it's clear
there is not consensus to change it.  

I do think that some patent holders want to make their technology
available to the free software community.  I believe that if the free
software community agreed on what it wanted, it would be reasonable
for the IETF to pass that along to IPR holders as information to
consider when drafting proposed licenses.

--Sam


___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

RE: Shuffle those deck chairs!

[Brian Rosen]

This text does not seem to cover what we usually encounter in protocol
development.  What happens is that you claim a patent that would be
infringed by implementing the protocol.  Another company has its own patent
that it also claims would be infringed by implementing the protocol.  You
are willing to grant a worldwide, royalty free license to the patent to
anyone, including the other company, so long as the other company doesn't
try to force you to pay a royalty or take out a more restrictive license to
his patent.

Take a look at:
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/IPR/DYNAMICSOFT-SIMPLE.txt

for an example.

Brian

> -Original Message-
> From: RL 'Bob' Morgan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, October 15, 2004 1:28 PM
> To: Brian Rosen
> Cc: IETF
> Subject: RE: Shuffle those deck chairs!
> 
> 
> On Fri, 15 Oct 2004, Brian Rosen wrote:
> 
> > You guys don't have a problem with the "defensive suspension"/"no first
> use"
> > clauses, do you?
> >
> > Is there a "preferred" wording for it?
> 
> I think you'll find virtually identical wording on this topic in several
> well-known licenses:
> 
>http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
> 
>http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/MPL-1.1.html
> 
>http://www.eclipse.org/legal/cpl-v10.html
> 
>http://www.opensource.org/licenses/afl-2.1.php
> 
>   - RL "Bob"
> 
> 




___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Shuffle those deck chairs!

[shogunx]

How can we not adopt some manner of "open source" attitude, Paul?  That
has been the basic methodology of the IETF for some time.  Otherwise, we
would be paying for every DNS lookup.

Scott


On 15 Oct 2004, Paul Vixie wrote:

> [EMAIL PROTECTED] ("Eric S. Raymond") writes:
>
> > ...
> > The open-source community figured out by about 1997-1998 that there is no
> > way to discriminate between "commercial" and "noncommercial" activity
> > that does not create fatal uncertainties about who has what rights at
> > what times.  When you add the problems of mixing software with licenses
> > having *different versions* of such a distinction the downside gets even
> > worse.
> >
> > Thus, the licensing guidelines of both the OSI and FSF forbid attempts at
> > this.
>
> This only matters if you intend to limit redistribution.  The older BSD
> licenseware limits only liability, not redistribution, and thus doesn't
> care about details like commerce.  This could be a lesson for IETF if we
> really are going to address IPR issues in the boilerplate by adopting any
> kind of "open source" attitude.
> --
> Paul Vixie
>
> ___
> Ietf mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>

sleekfreak pirate broadcast
http://sleekfreak.ath.cx:81/


___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

RE: Shuffle those deck chairs!

[RL 'Bob' Morgan]

On Fri, 15 Oct 2004, Brian Rosen wrote:
You guys don't have a problem with the "defensive suspension"/"no first use"
clauses, do you?
Is there a "preferred" wording for it?
I think you'll find virtually identical wording on this topic in several 
well-known licenses:

  http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
  http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/MPL-1.1.html
  http://www.eclipse.org/legal/cpl-v10.html
  http://www.opensource.org/licenses/afl-2.1.php
 - RL "Bob"
___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Shuffle those deck chairs!

[Pekka Savola]

On Wed, 13 Oct 2004, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> Sam Hartman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > I think it would be wonderful if the free software community could
> > come to a consensus about what their requirements are. 

FWIW, I tried to initiate this dialogue a couple of times, the latest 
on Feb/Mar 2004, but as I received no response from FSF/OSS community, 
I gave up.

> That's not hard.  We need licensing conditions that don't require us
> to either pay royalties or sign legal papers, and which don't
> inhibit re-use of the code by restricting the area of application.

Hmm.. Being an OSS/FSF enthusiast myself, I'm not sure if the last
requirement, about code re-use, is a strict requirement.  Sure, it
would be nice if there wasn't such a thing, but it would seem to be
better to get the first two points and fail at the third than get
nothing at all.

I mean, if I was writing code that would be under a patent, and free
usage rights were granted for interoperability with a standard only,
I'd just write a big fat warning in the code segment and the README
file warning that don't copy my code to some completely unrelated
project unless you know what you're doing.

Which clauses of OSS/FSF licenses does "no re-use" infringe?

-- 
Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oykingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings


___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Shuffle those deck chairs!

[Paul Vixie]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] ("Eric S. Raymond") writes:

> ...
> The open-source community figured out by about 1997-1998 that there is no
> way to discriminate between "commercial" and "noncommercial" activity
> that does not create fatal uncertainties about who has what rights at
> what times.  When you add the problems of mixing software with licenses
> having *different versions* of such a distinction the downside gets even
> worse.
> 
> Thus, the licensing guidelines of both the OSI and FSF forbid attempts at
> this.

This only matters if you intend to limit redistribution.  The older BSD
licenseware limits only liability, not redistribution, and thus doesn't
care about details like commerce.  This could be a lesson for IETF if we
really are going to address IPR issues in the boilerplate by adopting any
kind of "open source" attitude.
-- 
Paul Vixie

___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

RE: Shuffle those deck chairs!

[Brian Rosen]

You guys don't have a problem with the "defensive suspension"/"no first use"
clauses, do you?

Is there a "preferred" wording for it?

Brian

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> Eric S. Raymond
> Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2004 10:56 PM
> To: Sam Hartman
> Cc: Florian Weimer; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Shuffle those deck chairs!
> 
> Sam Hartman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > I think it would be wonderful if the free software community could
> > come to a consensus about what their requirements are.
> 
> That's not hard.  We need licensing conditions that don't require us
> to either pay royalties or sign legal papers, and which don't inhibit
> re-use of the code by restricting the area of application.
> --
>   http://www.catb.org/~esr/";>Eric S. Raymond
> 
> ___
> Ietf mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> 




___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Shuffle those deck chairs!

[Eric S. Raymond]

Margaret Wasserman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I am afraid that your choice below won't mesh very well with why 
> companies have software patents in the first place.

You're right, it doesn't.  Unfortunately, we really cannot live with
anything less than I have described.  My personal wish that this
reality were different is as fruitless as yours.

> However, in doing this, MMI wants to ensure two things:
> 
> (1) That they continue to protect their patent rights regarding the 
> use of this technique for other purposes (such as cheese graters and 
> IP phones).  So, they want to limit the royalty-free terms to 
> implementation of the IETF's WRAPCTL protocol and/or to use on 
> Wireless Access Points.  (I think that this would run amok of your 
> proscription against "restricting the area of application", right?)

Right.

Area-of-application rules mean that code reuse can be fraught with
dangerous legal problems because of someone's well-meaning judgment
call about what's in-area and what is out-of-area.  Such legal
exposure is death to us -- our project groups can't afford lawyers to
fight those battles -- so our licensing requirements have to foreclose
that entire category of causes of action.  Otherwise our development
and distribution methods, which depend on code reuse and redistribution
being safe and friction-free, would seize up and croak.

Myself, I'll cheerfully recognize that MMI's interest is legitimate in
some sense -- I wish I knew of a way to solve this problem that doesn't
have deadly poison side-effects, and have devoted a lot of think time
to trying to invent one.  No joy.
 
> (2) That they maintain and enhance the defensive value of their 
> patent, by making it clear that the royalty-free terms do not apply 
> to anyone who sues them for violation of a different patent.  (If I 
> understand correctly, the OSS community doesn't have a problem with 
> this concept, as long as no paperwork is required?).

That's correct.

> Are there any IPR terms that MMI could offer that would meet these 
> goals while also allowing the WRAPCTL protocol to be implemented in 
> OSS implementations?  If we could find that middle ground, I think it 
> would be very valuable to the IETF and to the OSS community.

I don't believe any such middle ground exists.  I and others have tried
to imagine it into existence and failed.  We regret this, but it seems
to be reality.
 
> The sad truth, of course, is that (in the example above) it is far 
> more likely that MMI would not determine that the WRAPCTL protocol 
> violated their patents until longer after it had been standardized by 
> the IETF and implemented in many commercial and OSS implementations. 
> So, what would be do then?

Suffer a lot.

What your scenario demonstrates is that there is a fundamental and 
nigh-unbridgeable conflict between open-source development and the
patent system.  The open-source community is already well aware of
this, thank you.  We don't know what to do about it either.
-- 
http://www.catb.org/~esr/";>Eric S. Raymond

___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Shuffle those deck chairs!

[Eric S. Raymond]

Simon Josefsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> There seem to be some misunderstanding here, free software is not
> "non-commercial".  If someone wants to put restrictions of their ideas
> on commercial competitors, that prevent the idea from being used in
> free software as well.  The rights associated with "free software" are
> granted to commercial entities as well.

That's an ideological answer, and therefore useless to anyone who does
not already buy the ideology.  Please see my last post for a less 
value-laden explanation.
-- 
http://www.catb.org/~esr/";>Eric S. Raymond

___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Shuffle those deck chairs!

[Eric S. Raymond]

Nathaniel Borenstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> This strikes me as oversimplistic.  What if a commercial enterprise 
> wanted to license its IPR in such a way that it put no constraints on 
> open source, but retained constraints on commercial competitors?  I'm 
> not sure you can get around a technical mandate for some kind of 
> license and still retain those options.  -- Nathaniel

Your suspicion is correct.  The problem -- which I and others looked for
a way around for years, to no avail -- is that there is no bright-line
way to separate "commercial" from "noncommercial" activity.  All attempts
trip over edge cases like this:

* A distributor aggregating software to be sold as a CD-ROM anthology
  for a modest fee.

* An engineer using software for development on a project which is not
  yet software for sale, but intended to be in the future.

* Development activity taking place at a for-profit subsidiary of a
  non-profit association.

The open-source community figured out by about 1997-1998 that there is
no way to discriminate between "commercial" and "noncommercial" activity
that does not create fatal uncertainties about who has what rights at
what times.  When you add the problems of mixing software with licenses having
*different versions* of such a distinction the downside gets even worse.

Thus, the licensing guidelines of both the OSI and FSF forbid attempts at this.
-- 
http://www.catb.org/~esr/";>Eric S. Raymond

___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Shuffle those deck chairs!

[Rodel Collado Urani]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

I cant think of some brillant ideas that commercial products will definitely
crash the open source products if it can deliver services as what the
commercial does. IPR protection is highly regarded, that is the presence
of GPL and is necessary for open source not to be copied by its commercial
competitors. The question is, is the open source software has its competitive
uniqueness over the commercial products? If yes then GPL is in the right
way, but if not then better yet to improved first and protect them later
on.

Open source products composed of people in the world if not in a big
organization, working and trying to transcend the capabilities of such
commercial products.

On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 00:52:38 -0700 shogunx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>On Fri, 15 Oct 2004, Nathaniel Borenstein wrote:
>
>> This strikes me as oversimplistic.  What if a commercial enterprise
>> wanted to license its IPR in such a way that it put no constraints
>on
>> open source, but retained constraints on commercial competitors?
> I'm
>> not sure you can get around a technical mandate for some kind
>of
>> license and still retain those options.  -- Nathaniel
>
>I can cite an example of a commercial enterprise with copyrighted
>GPL'd
>products who has some emasures to prevent this.  They sell clusters,

> and
>distribute the source code directly only to customers.  If you are
>an
>open source programmer, get to know them, and ask nicely, they will
>give
>you a copy for your purposes... i.e. if you want to "roll your own"
>cluster.  One could also probably acquire a copy from one of their
>customers, but a vast majority of their solution is hardware also,
> in the
>form of master node and diskless processing nodes.
>
>
>>
>> On Oct 13, 2004, at 10:55 PM, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
>>
>> > Sam Hartman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> >> I think it would be wonderful if the free software community
>could
>> >> come to a consensus about what their requirements are.
>> >
>> > That's not hard.  We need licensing conditions that don't require
>us
>> > to either pay royalties or sign legal papers, and which don't
>inhibit
>> > re-use of the code by restricting the area of application.
>> > --
>> >http://www.catb.org/~esr/";>Eric S. Raymond
>> >
>> > ___
>> > Ietf mailing list
>> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Ietf mailing list
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>>
>
>sleekfreak pirate broadcast
>http://sleekfreak.ath.cx:81/
>
>
>___
>Ietf mailing list
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RODEL COLLADO URANI
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Note: This signature can be verified at https://www.hushtools.com/verify
Version: Hush 2.4

wkYEARECAAYFAkFwqa0ACgkQQ7QUZrvBIZ1imACePEAvolBHdi3qLJfQDvz/uq6FfbkA
nRVSJl+0aUVqhPfxD/fHe4py9h4d
=oDO3
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Shuffle those deck chairs!

[Margaret Wasserman]

Hi Eric,
I am afraid that your choice below won't mesh very well with why 
companies have software patents in the first place.  Software patents 
aren't free, and companies are fairly careful about maintaining their 
value.

So, I am wondering if there is a middle ground here somewhere...
Let's take an example:
Mighty Mouse, Inc. (MMI) is introducing an innovative new product 
called the CheeseGrater2000 (CG2K).  MMI engineers came up with a 
uniquely efficient way to use XML messages to control the real-time 
operation of the CG2K that allows the CG2K to be faster and more 
accurate than other cheese graters.  MMI has applied for a patent -- 
not just for using their special XML messaging technique for 
real-time control of cheese graters, but for using it to control any 
real-time device that contains a general CPU and a DSP (don't ask how 
a cheese grater uses a DSP... that's confidential! :-)).

Let's assume, for purposes of this exercise, that MMI's patent is 
legally valid and would stand up in court.  Let's also assume that 
there is no prior art.

MMI's primary intention is to protect the research investment that 
has allowed them to build faster and more accurate cheese graters 
than the competition.  Secondary goals are to use this patent for 
defensive value, and to see if the technology covered by this patent 
can be applied to differentiate other MMI products.

A bit later, the IETF forms a WG that comes up with a new XML-based 
management protocol for managing Wireless Access Points called 
WiReless Access Point Control (WRAPCTL).  Although the WG is unaware 
of this fact, the messages used in that protocol are in violation of 
MMI's patent(s).

Meanwhile, MMI has realized that their patented technique may allow 
for product differentiation in their IP Phone division 
(diversification is good!) and they have started talking to their IP 
Phone division about that possibility.

One of their IP phone engineers is active in the Transport area of 
the IETF, and has heard about the Cheese Grater Division's patent 
during internal meetings at MMI.  During a plenary presentation on 
the success of the WRAPCTL WG, the MMI engineer realizes that the 
Cheese Grater Division's patent might apply to the messages described 
in the WRAPCTL protocol if (and only if) that protocol were 
implemented on a real-time system containing a CPU and DSP (like a 
Wireless Access Point).  Being a conscientious IETF member and 
all-around good guy, the MMI engineer starts working with his legal 
department to draft an IPR disclosure including licensing terms.

MMI was entirely uninvolved in the creation of the WRAPCTL protocol, 
so they did not cause this conflict themselves.  They don't make (or 
plan to make) Wireless Access Points, and the success of the WRAPCTL 
protocol has no strategic value whatsoever for them.  However, being 
a nice company that doesn't want to damage the IETF, they would like 
to provide IPR terms that will allow people to implement the WRAPCTL 
protocol without paying any money to MMI.

However, in doing this, MMI wants to ensure two things:
(1) That they continue to protect their patent rights regarding the 
use of this technique for other purposes (such as cheese graters and 
IP phones).  So, they want to limit the royalty-free terms to 
implementation of the IETF's WRAPCTL protocol and/or to use on 
Wireless Access Points.  (I think that this would run amok of your 
proscription against "restricting the area of application", right?)

(2) That they maintain and enhance the defensive value of their 
patent, by making it clear that the royalty-free terms do not apply 
to anyone who sues them for violation of a different patent.  (If I 
understand correctly, the OSS community doesn't have a problem with 
this concept, as long as no paperwork is required?).

Are there any IPR terms that MMI could offer that would meet these 
goals while also allowing the WRAPCTL protocol to be implemented in 
OSS implementations?  If we could find that middle ground, I think it 
would be very valuable to the IETF and to the OSS community.

The sad truth, of course, is that (in the example above) it is far 
more likely that MMI would not determine that the WRAPCTL protocol 
violated their patents until longer after it had been standardized by 
the IETF and implemented in many commercial and OSS implementations. 
So, what would be do then?

Margaret
At 10:55 PM -0400 10/13/04, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
Sam Hartman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
 I think it would be wonderful if the free software community could
 come to a consensus about what their requirements are.
That's not hard.  We need licensing conditions that don't require us
to either pay royalties or sign legal papers, and which don't inhibit
re-use of the code by restricting the area of application.
--
http://www.catb.org/~esr/";>Eric S. Raymond
___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www1.ietf.org/

Re: Shuffle those deck chairs!

[shogunx]

On Fri, 15 Oct 2004, Nathaniel Borenstein wrote:

> This strikes me as oversimplistic.  What if a commercial enterprise
> wanted to license its IPR in such a way that it put no constraints on
> open source, but retained constraints on commercial competitors?  I'm
> not sure you can get around a technical mandate for some kind of
> license and still retain those options.  -- Nathaniel

I can cite an example of a commercial enterprise with copyrighted GPL'd
products who has some emasures to prevent this.  They sell clusters, and
distribute the source code directly only to customers.  If you are an
open source programmer, get to know them, and ask nicely, they will give
you a copy for your purposes... i.e. if you want to "roll your own"
cluster.  One could also probably acquire a copy from one of their
customers, but a vast majority of their solution is hardware also, in the
form of master node and diskless processing nodes.


>
> On Oct 13, 2004, at 10:55 PM, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
>
> > Sam Hartman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >> I think it would be wonderful if the free software community could
> >> come to a consensus about what their requirements are.
> >
> > That's not hard.  We need licensing conditions that don't require us
> > to either pay royalties or sign legal papers, and which don't inhibit
> > re-use of the code by restricting the area of application.
> > --
> > http://www.catb.org/~esr/";>Eric S. Raymond
> >
> > ___
> > Ietf mailing list
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> >
> >
>
>
> ___
> Ietf mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>

sleekfreak pirate broadcast
http://sleekfreak.ath.cx:81/


___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Shuffle those deck chairs!

[Simon Josefsson]

There seem to be some misunderstanding here, free software is not
"non-commercial".  If someone wants to put restrictions of their ideas
on commercial competitors, that prevent the idea from being used in
free software as well.  The rights associated with "free software" are
granted to commercial entities as well.

Thanks.

Nathaniel Borenstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> This strikes me as oversimplistic.  What if a commercial enterprise 
> wanted to license its IPR in such a way that it put no constraints on 
> open source, but retained constraints on commercial competitors?  I'm 
> not sure you can get around a technical mandate for some kind of 
> license and still retain those options.  -- Nathaniel
>
> On Oct 13, 2004, at 10:55 PM, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
>
>> Sam Hartman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>> I think it would be wonderful if the free software community could
>>> come to a consensus about what their requirements are.
>>
>> That's not hard.  We need licensing conditions that don't require us
>> to either pay royalties or sign legal papers, and which don't inhibit
>> re-use of the code by restricting the area of application.
>> -- 
>>  http://www.catb.org/~esr/";>Eric S. Raymond
>>
>> ___
>> Ietf mailing list
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>>
>>
>
>
> ___
> Ietf mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Shuffle those deck chairs!

[Nathaniel Borenstein]

This strikes me as oversimplistic.  What if a commercial enterprise 
wanted to license its IPR in such a way that it put no constraints on 
open source, but retained constraints on commercial competitors?  I'm 
not sure you can get around a technical mandate for some kind of 
license and still retain those options.  -- Nathaniel

On Oct 13, 2004, at 10:55 PM, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
Sam Hartman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
I think it would be wonderful if the free software community could
come to a consensus about what their requirements are.
That's not hard.  We need licensing conditions that don't require us
to either pay royalties or sign legal papers, and which don't inhibit
re-use of the code by restricting the area of application.
--
http://www.catb.org/~esr/";>Eric S. Raymond
___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Shuffle those deck chairs!

[Eric S. Raymond]

Sam Hartman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I think it would be wonderful if the free software community could
> come to a consensus about what their requirements are. 

That's not hard.  We need licensing conditions that don't require us
to either pay royalties or sign legal papers, and which don't inhibit
re-use of the code by restricting the area of application.
-- 
http://www.catb.org/~esr/";>Eric S. Raymond

___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf