RE: [PATCH 00/05] ipv6: RFC4214 Support
As further clarification, here is the US patent office transaction history for the SRI application, which shows that the application was rejected on 8/02/04: http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/!ut/p/kcxml/04_Sj9SPykssy0xPLMnM z0vM0Y_QjzKLN4gPMATJgFieAfqRqCLGpugijnABX4_83FT9IKBEpDlQxNDCRz8qJzU9MblS P1jfWz9AvyA3NDSi3NsRAHxEBJg!/delta/base64xml/L0lJSk03dWlDU1lKSi9vQXd3QUF NWWdBQ0VJUWhDRUVJaEZLQSEvNEZHZ2RZbktKMEZSb1hmckNIZGgvN18wXzE4TC81L3NhLmd ldEJpYg!!?selectedTab=fileHistorytabisSubmitted=isSubmitteddosnum=0972 8253public_selectedSearchOption= and here is the 12/01/04 IPR Status summary from KAME stating the basis for including ISATAP in their product: http://www.kame.net/newsletter/20041201/ Fred [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Templin, Fred L Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2007 6:42 AM To: David Stevens; Pekka Savola Cc: David Miller; netdev@vger.kernel.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [PATCH 00/05] ipv6: RFC4214 Support I think I can clear this up. The patent office rejected SRI's patent application, therefore there are no valid claims that could prevent ISATAP from being included in public domain software releases. Indeed, Microsoft, cisco, and FreeBSD/KAME are shipping ISATAP and have been doing so for a long time, and I believe there are also several others. Fred [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: David Stevens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2007 11:54 PM To: Pekka Savola Cc: David Miller; Templin, Fred L; netdev@vger.kernel.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/05] ipv6: RFC4214 Support give it away on this specific instance. I'm not sure if you should attribute to hidden agendas what you can explain by doing the right thing (granted, very few companies do this which may make it suspect, but still..). Pekka, I'm not assuming hidden agendas here; I simply don't know what they mean by no license for implementers. It doesn't say they relinquish *all* licensing, which would be clearer if that's what they mean. If implementers, distributors, and users are included, then who's left that does need licensing? If that answer really is nobody, then why bother with for implementers.? So, I don't think it's a hidden agenda, I think they said what they mean. I just don't know what they mean. :-) +-DLS - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe netdev in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe netdev in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
RE: [PATCH 00/05] ipv6: RFC4214 Support
I think I can clear this up. The patent office rejected SRI's patent application, therefore there are no valid claims that could prevent ISATAP from being included in public domain software releases. Indeed, Microsoft, cisco, and FreeBSD/KAME are shipping ISATAP and have been doing so for a long time, and I believe there are also several others. Fred [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: David Stevens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2007 11:54 PM To: Pekka Savola Cc: David Miller; Templin, Fred L; netdev@vger.kernel.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/05] ipv6: RFC4214 Support give it away on this specific instance. I'm not sure if you should attribute to hidden agendas what you can explain by doing the right thing (granted, very few companies do this which may make it suspect, but still..). Pekka, I'm not assuming hidden agendas here; I simply don't know what they mean by no license for implementers. It doesn't say they relinquish *all* licensing, which would be clearer if that's what they mean. If implementers, distributors, and users are included, then who's left that does need licensing? If that answer really is nobody, then why bother with for implementers.? So, I don't think it's a hidden agenda, I think they said what they mean. I just don't know what they mean. :-) +-DLS - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe netdev in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH 00/05] ipv6: RFC4214 Support
On Tue, 6 Nov 2007, David Stevens wrote: give it away on this specific instance. I'm not sure if you should attribute to hidden agendas what you can explain by doing the right thing (granted, very few companies do this which may make it suspect, but still..). Pekka, I'm not assuming hidden agendas here; I simply don't know what they mean by no license for implementers. It doesn't say they relinquish *all* licensing, which would be clearer if that's what they mean. If implementers, distributors, and users are included, then who's left that does need licensing? If that answer really is nobody, then why bother with for implementers.? So, I don't think it's a hidden agenda, I think they said what they mean. I just don't know what they mean. :-) If you look at the page they used to file the disclosure: https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/new-specific/ You'll notice that they chose the most relaxed option available, and all the options only discuss implementers not distributors. Now, if you look at the background commentary of the subject: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3905 .. the comment about that particular option is: a) No License Required for Implementers: The Patent Holder does not require parties to acquire any license to its Necessary Patent Claims in order to make, have made, use, import, offer to sell, sell, or distribute technology that implements such an IETF specification. Seems clear to me, though someone could argue whether RFC 3905 is normative in this context, i.e., whether the person who submitted the disclosure understood the comment quoted above and that that's the way no license required for implementers must be interpreted. -- Pekka Savola You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oykingdom bleeds. Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe netdev in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH 00/05] ipv6: RFC4214 Support
Pekka, Thanks! That answers the question I had (i.e., you believe the legal issues are resolved). +-DLS - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe netdev in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
[PATCH 00/05] ipv6: RFC4214 Support
From: Fred L. Templin [EMAIL PROTECTED] The following diffs are specific to the Linux 2.6.23 kernel distribution and implement RFC4214 (Intra-Site Automatic Tunnel Addressing Protocol - ISATAP). The affected modules are: linux2.6.23/include/linux/if.h linux2.6.23/include/net/addrconf.h linux2.6.23/net/ipv6/addrconf.c linux2.6.23/net/ipv6/sit.c linux2.6.23/net/ipv6/Kconfig and the diffs for each file are included in the following messages as [PATCH 01/05] through [PATCH 05/05]. The code has been tested under Fedora Core 6 running the modified 2.6.23 and has been verified in both ISATAP client and ISATAP router configurations. (The ISATAP router configuration uses the 'radvd' package.) Interoperability testing with Windows Vista has also been performed. Please advise as to next steps. Signed-off-by: Fred L. Templin [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe netdev in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH 00/05] ipv6: RFC4214 Support
From: Templin, Fred L [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2007 17:15:54 -0800 Please advise as to next steps. Your email client has mangles the patches, adding line breaks. This makes the patches not apply at all. Please correct this and resubmit, thank you. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe netdev in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH 00/05] ipv6: RFC4214 Support
Last I heard, there are Intellectual Property claims with ISATAP, which is why the RFC is not standards track and which makes it effectively a proprietary protocol. Unless that's been resolved, I think the claim by the IP owner is that it can't be distributed without a license from them. So, maybe not worth the effort for an experimental RFC. +-DLS - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe netdev in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH 00/05] ipv6: RFC4214 Support
From: David Stevens [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2007 21:26:15 -0800 Last I heard, there are Intellectual Property claims with ISATAP, which is why the RFC is not standards track and which makes it effectively a proprietary protocol. Unless that's been resolved, I think the claim by the IP owner is that it can't be distributed without a license from them. So, maybe not worth the effort for an experimental RFC. If this is the case, I agree, we cannot include ISATAP support in the kernel. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe netdev in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH 00/05] ipv6: RFC4214 Support
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] (at Tue, 06 Nov 2007 21:37:50 -0800 (PST)), David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] says: From: David Stevens [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2007 21:26:15 -0800 Last I heard, there are Intellectual Property claims with ISATAP, which is why the RFC is not standards track and which makes it effectively a proprietary protocol. Unless that's been resolved, I think the claim by the IP owner is that it can't be distributed without a license from them. So, maybe not worth the effort for an experimental RFC. If this is the case, I agree, we cannot include ISATAP support in the kernel. I guess license is no longer required for implementers of ISATAP. Is it right, Fred? https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/550/ --yoshfuji - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe netdev in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH 00/05] ipv6: RFC4214 Support
I guess license is no longer required for implementers of ISATAP. Is it right, Fred? https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/550/ Does this also allow license-free redistribution? I'm certainly no lawyer, but I don't see the point of having a patent that doesn't restrict *something*. :-) +-DLS - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe netdev in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH 00/05] ipv6: RFC4214 Support
From: David Stevens [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2007 22:07:44 -0800 I guess license is no longer required for implementers of ISATAP. Is it right, Fred? https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/550/ Does this also allow license-free redistribution? I'm certainly no lawyer, but I don't see the point of having a patent that doesn't restrict *something*. :-) That is my interpretation as well. It allows license free implementation, but not distribution of said implementation. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe netdev in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH 00/05] ipv6: RFC4214 Support
On Tue, 6 Nov 2007, David Miller wrote: From: David Stevens [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2007 22:07:44 -0800 I guess license is no longer required for implementers of ISATAP. Is it right, Fred? https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/550/ Does this also allow license-free redistribution? I'm certainly no lawyer, but I don't see the point of having a patent that doesn't restrict *something*. :-) DavidS, the history here is that first the IPR holder did not grant license-free implementation. After considerable time (and I suspect energy spent by Fred), the company was convinced that license-free implementation did not hurt their interests and they were willing to give it away on this specific instance. I'm not sure if you should attribute to hidden agendas what you can explain by doing the right thing (granted, very few companies do this which may make it suspect, but still..). That is my interpretation as well. It allows license free implementation, but not distribution of said implementation. This may be a fine point. When submitting the IPR notice, the IPR holder is asked whether it can be implemented without a license. No questions about redistribution are asked -- maybe nobody thought that asking that would be necessary if a positive answer is received on the first one. I'd guess that the owner that grants license-free implementation would also be fine with license-free (re-)distribution. -- Pekka Savola You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oykingdom bleeds. Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe netdev in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH 00/05] ipv6: RFC4214 Support
give it away on this specific instance. I'm not sure if you should attribute to hidden agendas what you can explain by doing the right thing (granted, very few companies do this which may make it suspect, but still..). Pekka, I'm not assuming hidden agendas here; I simply don't know what they mean by no license for implementers. It doesn't say they relinquish *all* licensing, which would be clearer if that's what they mean. If implementers, distributors, and users are included, then who's left that does need licensing? If that answer really is nobody, then why bother with for implementers.? So, I don't think it's a hidden agenda, I think they said what they mean. I just don't know what they mean. :-) +-DLS - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe netdev in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
