Mr Crocker. I know you'd rather not give credit to anyone you disagree
with, which I suppose leaves only a preference to plagarize the work of
others and give undue credit to someone else, say, Vixie [ala the SPF/RMX
plagarism in which Vixie was improperly credited for the idea and the real
contributors and the originator of the idea were improperly removed***].
Since we [the anti-software-patent community -- and the LPF President is
an acknowledged leader of that community] mostly collectively dropped the
demand for no patents in lieu of a much more pragmatic and cooperative
view, a view that I originated and promoted, I think I can say they were
Of course, that must be very jarring to your world in which I represent no
one else's view, and have no valid point of view on any subject with which
you disagree. And indeed, I would be unsurprised if your world does not
admit that I have a valid point of view even on any subject on which we
_do_ happen to agree. I hope I don't rattle your world too much. Or
perhaps in your world, the IETF has already adopted a strict no-patent
policy. I couldn't tell. How'd that no-patent policy work out in your
world? Did it alienate any pro-patent companies?
*** The SPF/RMX issue is just one example of professional dishonesty.
Professional dishonesty is very much like academic dishonesty. The IETF
is supposed to be a professional organization, an activity of The Internet
Society, which is a professional organization. Improper attribution of
statements or plagarism, theft of ideas, etc in a referee'd paper would
not be acceptable in any professional or scientific journal. Plagarism,
theft of ideas, fabrication of statements, etc is unacceptable, under the
category of professional dishonesty. Particularly in official interactions
by the leadership of the IETF. Academic dishonesty is grounds for
expulsion from higher educational institutions. Yet, professional
dishonesty at the IETF is grounds for...exactly nothing. It is hard to
consider the IETF a professional organization since it adheres to no
professional standards. We shouldn't forget this, but it isn't my focus
at the moment. Someday, this issue should be addressed.
On Thu, 8 Sep 2005, Dave Crocker wrote:
[Note: Not very long ago, I argued persuasively to a large and broad
movement within the IETF seeking to have the IETF adopt an anti-patent
my memory is slipping worse that I thought.
i don't recall seeing evidence of the community's being persuaded.
Av8 Internet Prepared to pay a premium for better service?
www.av8.net faster, more reliable, better service
617 344 9000
Ietf mailing list