David Morris <dwm(_at_)xpasc(_dot_)com> writes:
On Thu, 23 Jul 2009, Richard Stallman wrote:
Generally speaking, standards are useful, because they enable people
to converge what they are doing. But that ceases to be true when the
use of the standard is patented. It is better to have no standard
than have a standard that invites people into danger.
An opinion with which I would differ ... patent encumbered documented
behavior is ALWAYS better than no public documentation for commonly
used protocols. As a person with frequent exposure to the operational
troubleshooting side of networks, lack of accessible documentation is
intolerable.
I agree, but I don't see anyone making an argument against that. What
the question here is about is to classify this (already accessible)
documentation as an Internet Standard. That sends a message that the
document is what the IETF recommends to use. There is a significant
difference.
There is no trap when an SDO documents a protocol and publishes that
documentation with a caveat that includes documentation of one or more
patent claims related to the published protocol. Any fool who
implements the protocol without resolving those issues deserves what
the get. The trap is the case where the patent or other IP claim isn't
revealed.
I believe the problem with this patent disclosure is that it isn't clear
what is claimed. People are trying to resolve the issue, and this is
what the IETF process is about: we need to evaluate things on a
document-by-document basis.
Fear of patent claims have been successfully used as arguments to
publish documents as Informational instead of Proposed Standard before,
compare, e.g., RFC 5054 on TLS-SRP.
Thanks,
Simon
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf