In <p06110409bd5e7406175c(_at_)[129(_dot_)46(_dot_)227(_dot_)161]> Ted Hardie
<hardie(_at_)qualcomm(_dot_)com> writes:
At 8:13 PM -0500 9/2/04, wayne wrote:
> 4) IP licensing: I'm not dogmatic about the GPL or commercial
licenses, but there are significant MTAs and mail filters that fall
under both kinds of licenses, and several others to boot. I think
that any proposal that has incompatible IP licensing needs to be
dropped.
Sadly, in response to this post back in July, Ted Hardie (the IETF
Area Director for this WG), told us to stop worry about IP licensing
issues. I believe the mess we are in right now is a direct result of
this. Instead of getting the IP licensing issue resolved *much*
earlier on, we now have a crisis and a no-win situation.
There's no reference to which post of mine is meant, but I
assume http://www.imc.org/ietf-mxcomp/mail-archive/msg02748.html
is the one to which this refers.
I'm sorry, I should have been clearer. I was referring to your
earlier post:
http://www.imc.org/ietf-mxcomp/mail-archive/msg02660.html
That post did not say "stop worrying about the licensing issues",
it said "Discuss licensing in terms of the engineering decisions"
or more fully:
In the post I was referring to, Shevek was describing the friction
caused by the use of new/unfamiliar licenses and how people often
picked familiar licenses instead.
In response you wrote, in part:
: I urge the working group to stop fixating on this and go back to reviewing
: and contributing to the specifications. This list is intended to focus on
: the engineering needed to get its charter done, and we have enough
distractions
: without raising this spectre from its well-deserved grave.
In neither post did you take steps to get the IPR license issue
resolved. I'm afraid that the IPR issue have never been placed in the
grave and this spectre will continue to be raised as long as the
patent license terms conflict with so much of the existing email
infrastructure.
-wayne