On 2007-09-27 03:35, Paul Hoffman wrote:
...
At 10:02 AM +0200 9/26/07, Simon Josefsson wrote:
Hear, hear. I believe a significant part of the IETF community would
agree with Paul Vixie that something similar to what the IEEE have would
be very useful for the IETF community as well. When I read the article
that was linked, I had the same reaction as Vixie.
Did you read the rest of the thread after that? Many people pointed out
that the article was wrong with respect to what the IEEE's rules are.
Are you disputing what those people said? If so, having some exact
wording and implementation experience from the IEEE would be very useful
for us to decide if we want to follow their model.
Indeed. And for those who did read the IEEE's set of options carefully
(http://standards.ieee.org/board/pat/loa.pdf),
the only major difference from the IETF's set of options is that
IEEE now allows a RAND disclosure to include a maximum financial level
that would be charged for royalties, i.e. allows the disclosure to
define the "reasonable" in "RAND" in dollar amounts. So RAND remains
an acceptable option in the IEEE rules, as it is in the IETF rules,
but with the added option.
I believe that the IEEE, and one or two other SDOs that allow such a
financial disclosure, went through very careful legal steps to ensure
that their rules were unlikely to break anti-trust laws.
I also believe that the IEEE has a range of options including RAND
for the same reason the IETF does - there are a lot of players
in the standards game who insist on having this option available.
I don't see any realistic chance of the IETF consensus on this
changing, much as I would like all standards to be royalty-free.
(For those who haven't noticed, I recently changed employers.
Bizarrely, that hasn't changed my opinion.)
Regards
Brian Carpenter
University of Auckland
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf