ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

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

2007-10-19 14:10:49
I DO want IETF to
adopt policies concerning the disclosure of patents when known by WG
participants, and the mandatory licensing of those patents for free by those
patent owners who actually participate in and contribute to a specification,
or alternatively the withdrawal of that specification as an IETF standard.

The IETF already has policies about disclosures of patents when known by
working group participants, as you well know.

This sounds like you want the IETF as whole to make this decision prior
to any work of a working group, and without any working group consideration
of whether the benefits of a licensed technology support its selection for
a particular context.

Otherwise, to speak freely here, patent-encumbered specifications that we
waste our time creating are useless for open source and many proprietary
implementations.

"waste our time" is a pretty loaded phrase.  "open source" also covers
a wide variety of licenses, and it's only when the open source developer
actually sees  the patent and the offered license that this determination
can be made.  Cisco has probably disclosed the most patents in an
IETF context (163 disclosures in any case; I'm having trouble getting the
tool to give me comparisons), but its licenses don't seem to have allowed
both open source and proprietary implementations.  Yet they clearly
are encumbered.

Patent-encumbered specification that *we choose to develop with the
knowledge of those patents* may be in the best interests of the Internet,
at least as well as an open process can determine.    We'll never have
perfect knowledge, obviously, as someone not participating may end up
claiming patent coverage.  But ruling it out without letting a working
group balance technology and license is worse than where we are now,
at least in my view. 


But I go beyond where we are already. The policy we need should not be
debated here yet. This is too big a list for that discussion.

Funny, you objected that it should be here the last time I suggested that
the IPR working group list was the best place for this discussion.  You
said it was strangled in committee the last time the community debated
it there.


What I request is that we charter the IETF IPR-WG to propose policies and
procedures, consistent with the worldwide mission of IETF, which will result
in IETF specifications unencumbered by restrictive, non-free patents.

Ah, I see why you appear to have changed your position.   You actually
want the result you're arguing for built into the charter of
the IPR working group,  beforehand without letting the community actually
discuss it.     Thanks for re-affirming my faith in your consistency.


That's a simple charter for the IPR-WG. Not so simple perhaps to guarantee
consensus even on definitions, and perhaps it won't result in a single
formal proposal, but it needs to be addressed. The IPR-WG is an appropriate
place for that activity.


If you want to argue for a change in the charter of the IPR working group,
you can certainly do it on that list.  But, please, do realize you have to
get the community to agree on the charter goals first.   No one in the
IETF, including the IESG, has the right to change the goals of a working
group without community input and agreement.  The ability to review
and comment on that kind of thing is something a lot of people value
around here.

Speaking only for myself,

                                Ted Hardie

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

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