"Lawrence Rosen" <lrosen(_at_)rosenlaw(_dot_)com> writes:
Scott Brim responded:
I'm with Ted ... let's take this over to ipr-wg.
I respectfully disagree with Steven Bellovin and Scott Brim, and ask that we
NOT turn this issue back to the IPR-WG unless and until its charter is
revised to allow it to *completely revise* IETF's IPR policies with respect
to patents.
I agree. The current IPR WG charter contains:
The WG has also discussed the possibility of changing the IETF's
patent policy, but did not detect a consensus for doing so.
Moving this discussion to the IPR WG list would be outside of the WG's
charter, and discussions would likely be killed.
I support re-chartering of the IPR WG to discuss a IETF-wide patent
policy.
However it has to be done, I ask that IETF not let that burial happen again.
Let's first charter the IPR-WG to completely reconsider the IETF patent
policy in light of new software industry expectations, and so that we get
rid of the inadequate RAND (and even non-RAND) IETF IPR policies that
currently exist.
Hear, hear. I believe a significant part of the IETF community would
agree with Paul Vixie that something similar to what the IEEE have would
be very useful for the IETF community as well. When I read the article
that was linked, I had the same reaction as Vixie.
The best would be if all standards track documents were published under
a similar policy as the IEEE appear to have: any patent holders must
promise not to sue over implementation.
Another approach that would not require fundamental changes in the IETF
would be to introduce a new classification of standards: one class where
the IETF applies a policy similar to the IEEE and one class where the
policy is not applied, and it would permit publishing of
patent-encumbered technologies.
/Simon
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf