--On Thursday, 21 October, 2004 22:16 +0200 Brian E Carpenter
<brc(_at_)zurich(_dot_)ibm(_dot_)com> wrote:
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,
While I've been trying to avoid this discussion, since it seems
to be one of "repeat the same thing over and over again in the
hope that people will eventually believe you... or it will
become true", I think your observation above calls for two
additional observations (which have probably also been made
before). I also know you know all of this, but it seems to need
saying again.
(1) Unlike consortia whose mission tend to be either "make
things better for the members while improving things overall" or
"improve things overall while making things better for the
members", the IETF's purpose is, to paraphrase recent
discussions, to make the Internet work better by defining and
promoting interoperability. However often they may intersect,
those are different goals. To take the oft-cited W3C as an
example, its mission is to "develop[s] interoperable
technologies (specifications, guidelines, software, and tools)
to lead the Web to its full potential. W3C is a forum for
information, commerce, communication, and collective
understanding." That "full potential" part isn't an IETF
objective, nor, normally, are "information, commerce, and
communication". Their realizing those goals may well justify
the membership saying "if the open source folks, however
defined, can't implement this, then we don't care about it".
The IETF, by contrast, needs to be open even to the most
encumbered of approaches if it is clear that they are
technically so far superior that the market will adopt them no
matter what we do. And we need to understand them to the extent
possible to make a judgment about whether or not they are that
superior. I believe need we need to go to great lengths to
avoid requiring an overly-encumbered technology. But, if we
cannot find an alternative, we can't. And if we conclude that
an encumbered technology is acceptable as an alternative or
additional option in a standard, I think that is --as it always
has been-- a judgment that WGs and the IESG need to be able to
make.
(2) If one accepts even a fraction of my comments above, then it
is in our interest, and the Internet's interest, to make the
IETF tent spread as widely as possible. Our message to
patent-holders should be "please participate here and see if
things can be worked out to mutual benefit" not "you are evil
and we don't want you here unless you mend your ways". We
should try to be as inclusive as possible of those who are
inclined to "play outside the standards game" so as to make them
people we can have discussions with, people and organizations
who might see the advantages of interoperability, and not
"targets".
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf