On Tue, Oct 23, 2007 at 01:04:32PM -0700, Ted Hardie wrote:
I believe it is fairer to recognize that in your example proposal B
is known to have been patented where A is not. There is always the
chance that someone will turn out to have secured rights which they
later claim read on A. In
Sam Hartman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Simon == Simon Josefsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Simon Frank Ellermann [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Simon Josefsson wrote:
I would even consider a requirement that in order to move
beyond Proposed Standard, a protocol needs to have a
Scott Kitterman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And that will never fly (IANAL) with the GPL and so here we sit at an
impasse again. So either a GPL implementation is important to
interoperability in a given space or it is not. If it is important to
interoperabilty, then this is a showstopper.
Philippe Verdy wrote:
We do have lots of informational RFCs which are still needed and
actively used, sometimes even required (notably those in the BCP
series, like the Netiquette which has become a requirement for
almost all ISP customers, as part of their contract, despite they
are only
Theodore Tso wrote:
[BOCU-1]
Can someone give an example of someone who has requested
a license but not received one, please?
Apparently somebody tried and got no answer, compare
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.text.unicode.devel/23259
Authors,
if you want to change the draft based on the sec-dir or gen-art
reviews, please let me know and either send me a corresponding RFC
Editor Note or tell me that you're submitting a new draft.
Lars
On 2007-10-23, at 9:06, ext Tom Yu wrote:
Bob == Bob Briscoe [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Here are my Technical and Editorial comments:
T1: page 19, Section 6.1 -
The Metering Process must support inclusion of the following in
each Packet Report, as a configurable option:
(iii) a basic report on the packet, i.e., some number of
On Tue, 23 Oct 2007, Sam Hartman wrote:
However I feel there is something pathalogical going on in the open
source community surrounding patents. People are willing to use
technologies that probably have patents but are unwilling to use
technologies that clearly have patents and that have a
Simon == Simon Josefsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Simon Sam Hartman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Simon == Simon Josefsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Simon Frank Ellermann [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Simon Josefsson wrote: I would even consider a
requirement that in order
On Wednesday 24 October 2007 06:50, Norbert Bollow wrote:
Scott Kitterman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And that will never fly (IANAL) with the GPL and so here we sit at an
impasse again. So either a GPL implementation is important to
interoperability in a given space or it is not. If it is
At 8:10 PM -0400 10/23/07, Theodore Tso wrote:
On Tue, Oct 23, 2007 at 01:04:32PM -0700, Ted Hardie wrote:
I believe it is fairer to recognize that in your example proposal B
is known to have been patented where A is not. There is always the
chance that someone will turn out to have secured
No. My point was that for the IETF, interoperability is the goal, not some
general statement about goodness of Free software. In many/most/maybe all
cases, this will require any IPR restrictions to be GPL compatible.
Can you think of an open-source project interested in the work of CCAMP?
That
Ted Hardie wrote:
The point being, of course, that there is a world of difference between
many and all here. If there is no development community using
the GPL in an area, forcing the IPR restrictions to meet a GPL test
may hinder development rather than enhance it, especially in
cases where
GPL would not be a criterion I would consider reasonable. And in particular I
would not accept the idea that the IETF or any other body be committed to
whatever notions insert themselves into RMS in the future. I have actually met
RMS.
What I would like to do here is to arrive at a set of
Not as out of date as some sources
http://davidguy.brinkster.net/computer/
It was my first computer book.
From: Frank Ellermann [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wed 24/10/2007 7:58 AM
To: ietf@ietf.org
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: FYI 28 (was: A priori IPR
On Wednesday 24 October 2007 14:01, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
GPL would not be a criterion I would consider reasonable. And in particular
I would not accept the idea that the IETF or any other body be committed to
whatever notions insert themselves into RMS in the future. I have actually
On Wed, 24 Oct 2007, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
GPL would not be a criterion I would consider reasonable. And in
particular I would not accept the idea that the IETF or any other body
be committed to whatever notions insert themselves into RMS in the
future.
There are plenty of much less
At 10:02 AM -0700 10/24/07, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
Ted Hardie wrote:
The point being, of course, that there is a world of difference between
many and all here. If there is no development community using
the GPL in an area, forcing the IPR restrictions to meet a GPL test
may hinder development
I would accept GPL 2.0, but not GPL without any qualifier such that the IETF
was required to comply with whatever scheme RMS has thought up this week to
reinsert himself at the center of attention.
From: Tony Finch on behalf of Tony Finch
Sent: Wed 24/10/2007
Phillip Hallam-Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would accept GPL 2.0, but not GPL without any qualifier such that the
IETF was required to comply with whatever scheme RMS has thought up this
week to reinsert himself at the center of attention.
I wouldn't have any objections to a policy which
Ted Hardie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No. My point was that for the IETF, interoperability is the goal, not some
general statement about goodness of Free software. In many/most/maybe all
cases, this will require any IPR restrictions to be GPL compatible.
Can you think of an open-source
On 2007-10-25 04:30, Sam Hartman wrote:
...
Simon If you replace IBM with 'A Patent Troll', do you think the
Simon same holds?
I think that such behavior should be presumed not to be a patent
troll. Patent trolls are not known forpromising to give away
royalty-free licenses.
They
On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 10:15:55 +1300
Brian E Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2007-10-25 04:30, Sam Hartman wrote:
...
Simon If you replace IBM with 'A Patent Troll', do you think
Simon the same holds?I think that such behavior should
Simon be presumed not to be a
On 2007-10-25 08:32, Ted Hardie wrote:
At 10:02 AM -0700 10/24/07, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
Ted Hardie wrote:
The point being, of course, that there is a world of difference between
many and all here. If there is no development community using
the GPL in an area, forcing the IPR restrictions to
Steven Bellovin wrote:
Right. Any IPR policy has to acknowledge the fact that relevant
patents can be owned by non-troll non-participants. (Too many
negatives there -- what I'm saying is that IETFers don't know of all
patents in the space, and there are real patent owners who care about
The IESG is making a call for volunteers for the IETF Administrative
Oversight Committee (IAOC), as described in BCP 101 (RFC 4071), following
the procedures documented in BCP 113 (RFC 4333). The nominations open
now, and they will close on 18 Nov 2007.
In alternate years. the IESG and the IAB
26 matches
Mail list logo
