--On onsdag, oktober 06, 2004 17:50:04 -0400 John C Klensin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
--On Wednesday, October 06, 2004 1:07 PM +0200 Harald Tveit Alvestrand
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I do think our thoughts run very much in parallel - I'll be
interested to hear more of why you think the "scen
--On onsdag, oktober 06, 2004 23:52:15 +0200 Simon Josefsson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Even if that is true, it would not change that the current copying
conditions are a problem for the free software community, and in my
opinion, consequently the IETF.
this was something I did not see clearly
Dear All,
Can anyone suggest another hotel for IETF 61? Hilton Washington is booked
full.
Thank you
Saravanan Govindan
___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (scott bradner) writes:
> the text you quoted says
>> derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain
>> it or assist in its implmentation may be prepared, copied,
>
> note that it is restricted to "derivative works that comment on or
> otherwise explain it or assist in its
--On Wednesday, October 06, 2004 1:07 PM +0200 Harald Tveit
Alvestrand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I do think our thoughts run very much in parallel - I'll be
interested to hear more of why you think the "scenario O"
organizational format will make it hard to make those support
functions work.
Ag
the text you quoted says
> derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain
> it or assist in its implmentation may be prepared, copied,
note that it is restricted to "derivative works that comment on or
otherwise explain it or assist in its implmentation" it is not open
ended permission t
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (scott bradner) writes:
>> but according to RFC 3667, the only
>> organization permitted to produce such derivative works would be
>> ISOC/IETF.
>
> this is the way that its been since rfc 2026
The 2026 copyright notice include:
This document and translations of it may be co
> but according to RFC 3667, the only
> organization permitted to produce such derivative works would be
> ISOC/IETF.
this is the way that its been since rfc 2026
note that an rfc can be copied in full with no problems
and that an author can give permission to produce derivative works
its just t
First, thanks for your two well written posts. They were the first in
this thread that reflect views that I share. Over the past week, I've
read both the "O" and "C" proposals, and it seems to me they both fail
to properly address the problems you bring up. Consequently, in the
straw poll, I did
On Tue, 5 Oct 2004 11:12:13 -0700, Ted Hardie wrote:
> Fundamentally, the working group chairs and I believed that
> the group was very unlikely to reach consensus, as it kept re-
> spinning old arguments.
Since Ted (perhaps unwittingly) explicitly copied me, I thought
it worth registering my
The final list of 2004/05 NomCom volunteers is available
here:
http://www.ietf.org/nomcom/msg10.06.04.txt
If you've volunteered and don't see your name on the list
please contact me ASAP. If your name is flagged on the
list you still need to be confirmed as eligible (I'm in the
process of doing th
Hi -
> From: "Scott W Brim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2004 4:54 AM
> Subject: Re: Shuffle those deck chairs!
...
> The US patent office is overwhelmed, and acting like it's under a DoS
> attack. I agree it would be great if we all offered technic
Simon Josefsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I wouldn't go as far as saying IETF is part of the open-source
> community.
Well, it is in at least the historical sense -- that is, of having
provided an important model for decentralized cooperation that shaped
the open-source tradition. Fred Baker, repres
On 6-okt-04, at 13:54, Scott W Brim wrote:
Maybe I'm being naive here, but it seems to me that
some kind of clue transfer from the IETF to the US patent office would
be beneficial to all except the patent lawyers who would then have to
start to do actual work to make a living.
The US patent office
Dave,
We have a long history of looking at the same data and analysis
and reaching different conclusions and of looking at different
data and analysis and reaching similar conclusions. Since we
have both been critical of aspects of this process, let me agree
with you about part of it but suppl
On Wed, Oct 06, 2004 09:59:53AM +0200, Iljitsch van Beijnum allegedly wrote:
> On 6-okt-04, at 6:12, Scott W Brim wrote:
>
> >However, there appears to be rough consensus emerging that an IPR
> >assertion is acceptable if any of the following are true:
>
> > - a license is explicitly not require
--On tirsdag, oktober 05, 2004 12:04:26 -0400 John C Klensin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
We have considered such a model; in fact the General Area
Review Team (gen-ART) has proved to me that it is possible to
get a great deal done on a volunteer basis - and even more if
you get someone to act as
At 09:59 06/10/2004, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
As Ted says, the IETF should stay out of passing judgment on the
validity of claims and/or fighting patents. It's really way outside of
our charter.
I gather that the US patent office pretty much rubber stamps patent
applications in the IETF's area
On 6-okt-04, at 6:12, Scott W Brim wrote:
However, there appears to be rough consensus emerging that an IPR
assertion is acceptable if any of the following are true:
- a license is explicitly not required.
- a license is explicitly free with no restrictions.
- a license is explicitly free
19 matches
Mail list logo
