ietf-mxcomp
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: DEPLOY/IPR: Fundamental Disagreements - licese terms are a blow to IETF process

2004-08-25 15:36:20


On Wed, 25 Aug 2004, Graham Murray wrote:

Ryan Ordway <ryan(_at_)nwgeeks(_dot_)com> writes:

    Perhaps a show of hands is in order to see just
how much of a "minority" those who disapprove of the terms
of the RFSIPL are? Consider my hand raised.

My hand is raised. 

My hand is also raised. Because in my view the license terms represent a 
blow to opensource and a more important here blow to IETF process.

The license terms are a blow to the core of the opensource movement. All 
other open-source license were created as a reaction to GNU when it did 
not quite fit circumstance for particular product when commercial
interest were to a degree involved. However opensouce core represented
by GNU is why Linux is so popular and its emphasis is on creating product 
that is free to everyone and where everyone, including commercial entities 
are treated the same just as a free willing contributor to the product 
and his/hers/its contribution does not impose any restrictions and become 
equal part of the total mix. 

The IETF to a degree represents similar ideas in the world of protocol 
design - everyone here is treated as a individual and his or hers 
contribution go towards the total and should be treated equally with 
everyone elses ideas no matter what company person may work for (if any 
at all). As individuals everyone here is giving their time and ideas 
freely towards the total understanding that its all goes towards creating
something really good that everyone can enjoy and all such participants
receive back is enjoyment that you helped everyone else on the net (and 
maybe your name in RFC, but although for some that is important, I hope 
most understand that its not the main thing). Similarly to opensource the 
contribution should not impose restrictions on the protocol as those 
giving it, including large corporations should be compelled to provide 
their ideas free and unrestricted to everyone else (although I'm ok with
patent license terms where all that is required is acknoledgement of work 
of that company, that is fair thing to ask).

If we continue with IETF process where company get involved and using 
their patent terms restrict use of the protocol to only certain persons, 
the process would have failed to achieve fundamental goal of creating 
an open standard and failed to equally account contribution of every party.
This represents the end of IETF in the way it was in my view.

-- 
William Leibzon
Elan Networks
william(_at_)elan(_dot_)net


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>