"Frank Ellermann" <nobody(_at_)xyzzy(_dot_)claranet(_dot_)de> writes:
Simon Josefsson wrote:
I would even consider a requirement that in order to move beyond
Proposed Standard, a protocol needs to have a free implementation
Tricky, e.g. my BOCU-1 implementation is "free" in a certain sense,
but I'm also sure that I don't have a license.
Do you refer to the IBM patent on BOCU? As far as I have understood,
IBM promised to grant a free patent license to people who requested it,
but people never received a license despite requesting one. If this is
accurate, I think it is a good example of a technology that should not
be standardized and should not be promoted by the community.
BOCU would also be a good example of why promises to grant a free patent
license to those who request it is insufficient.
I think the solution here is to come up with a reasonable definition of
"free" that would fail to be met in the specific case of BOCU. I don't
think it is an impossible problem to solve. How about 'Should be
possible to implement without having to pay for a patent license'?
Ietf mailing list