On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 06:21:26PM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
I don't know the answer to that question, but I can follow you in
considering the consequences of a possible yes answer.
However if the answer is yes, then the TLS implementation must not
export the TLS extractor to applications when doing so would cause the
applications to infringe.
There is no technical way that the TLS implementation can tell whether
the application has a patent license. That could be changed from the
day to the next, by the actions of lawyers and businessmen, without
any change in the code of the application.
So the question that would follow is, what good is a standard which
people are free to implement in a library, but cannot actually use
without asking permission?
I agree. The question is: must each participant go pay a lawyer to
answer that question? But suppose that we simply say that the very fact
that this question is raised is enough to drop the standardization
effort (e.g., because not every participant, in a volunteer organization
like the IETF, can pay for a lawyer every time something like this comes
up), are we not then making it trivial to DoS the standards process?
The operative word here is uncertainty. A patent-holder creates
uncertainty. How should an SDO respond? I'm not sure. I'm only sure
that I don't like getting DoSed, either into dropping a standard or into
not implementing it for fear of infringing. In this case Mr. Campana
sent a clarification with a specific claim, but not disclaiming other
potential claims. To me that's sufficient to proceed. But IANAL, and I
don't represent my employer (as is the norm at the IETF).
Nico
--
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf