ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: A priori IPR choices [Re: Third Last Call:draft-housley-tls-authz-extns]

2007-10-18 16:21:48
[I stripped cc's from this reply]

Brian Carpenter wrote:
Violent disagreement. That would make all kinds of a priori
processes kick in for employees of patent-conscious companies, and
generally inhibit free discussion of initial ideas. Although it's
messier to confront patent issues later in the process, I believe
that is much better than constraining participation at the
beginning.
 
Scott Brim responded: 
+1
Otherwise you get into battles over theory and ideology without any of
the information you need to make a decision.  You will still be able
to take your stance once the technical tradeoffs are worked out.


Strong -1 to Brian's and Scott's comments.

Isn't it preferable to get into early battles over IP rules--and make sure
those rules are clear to WG participants--before we have wasted our time and
resources developing specifications that half the world (or more) can't
implement?

Has anyone ever suggested that we inhibit "free discussion of initial
ideas"? Please don't raise silly arguments like that. Among the most
exciting discussions of ideas are those that come from having to design
around a patent that isn't available for free.

/Larry Rosen


-----Original Message-----
From: Scott Brim [mailto:swb(_at_)employees(_dot_)org]
Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 3:12 PM
To: Brian E Carpenter
Cc: Simon Josefsson; ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; Tim Polk
Subject: A priori IPR choices [Re: Third Last Call:draft-housley-tls-
authz-extns]

On 19 Oct 2007 at 10:30 +1300, Brian E Carpenter allegedly wrote:
On 2007-10-19 05:47, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
What I would suggest is that new working groups be required to
specify the governing IPR rules in their charter, these would be
either that all IPR must be offered according to an open grant on
W3C terms or that the working group specifies at the outset that
RAND terms are acceptable.

Violent disagreement. That would make all kinds of a priori
processes kick in for employees of patent-conscious companies, and
generally inhibit free discussion of initial ideas. Although it's
messier to confront patent issues later in the process, I believe
that is much better than constraining participation at the
beginning.

+1

Otherwise you get into battles over theory and ideology without any of
the information you need to make a decision.  You will still be able
to take your stance once the technical tradeoffs are worked out.

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>