Tim Bray wrote:
On Oct 21, 2004, at 7:59 AM, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
Brian E Carpenter <brc(_at_)zurich(_dot_)ibm(_dot_)com>:
I don't think we can require the IESG to negotiate anything. There are
all kinds of legal issues there. To my knowledge, both WGs and the IESG
do think carefully about this, but often conclude that the default IETF
conditions (RAND) are realistic and acceptable.
If IETF continues to believe this, groups like Apache and Debian will
continue
to have to end-run IETF
I'm with ESR on this one. The W3C bit the bullet and built a patent/IPR
policy that has integrity and is based on the notion that the Net works
properly when important components can be built by un-funded
independents without worrying about getting their asses sued by someone
with a patent portfolio. If the IETF wants to ignore history and build
an Internet where that doesn't hold, feel free, but it's not a very
interesting kind of place. -Tim
Patent holders who choose to stay outside the standards setting
process are not in the least impressed by the IPR policy of the
standards body, whether it is the W3C, the IETF, or anywhere else.
Those are the patent holders you need to worry about, not the ones
who play nice by helping to set open standards. You're shooting at
the wrong target by shooting at the IETF and its participants.
Brian
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf