At 11:15 AM 5/30/2002 -0400, Scott Brim wrote:
and if one solution is 120% better technically than another, but has a
RAND license associated with it? What if it's 170% better?
And Scott's questions become particularly comfortable if we translate them
into questions about protocol efficiency. That is, we consider a range of
merits, rather than just stating flat rules about single decision attributes.
To underscore the point that Marshall has been making:
The IETF has a strong preference to use unencumbered technologies. When
there is a choice between encumbered and unencumbered, the working group
includes encumbrance into the range of factors it treats as important for
evaluating alternatives.
There are some unknowns about licensing. Some holders of IPR are helpful
to resolving that easily and quickly. Others are more reticent. That
become a component of the evaluation about the IPR factor.
And so on.
Generally this thread seems to be seeking determinacy for a matter that can
only be made deterministic by a) ignoring IPR encumbrance, or b) rejecting
all IPR encumbrances. The first is not compatible with IETF culture. The
latter is not practical in some cases.
So, what exactly do folks think is a practical kind of change to the
current IETF policies?
d/
----------
Dave Crocker <mailto:dave(_at_)tribalwise(_dot_)com>
TribalWise, Inc. <http://www.tribalwise.com>
tel +1.408.246.8253; fax +1.408.850.1850