For what it's worth, I'd like to write in general support of
re-evaluating several aspects of our patent policy. I 'm not quite
writing in support of rechartering IPR at this time. First, I think
they have critical copyright work to finish. Second, I think that we
need to find a way to have the discussion in a productive forum. I'm
not entirely sure a rechartered IPR working group would do that.
Here are some examples of questions I think it might be desirable to
consider:
* Establishing a clear category for some sort of
open-source-compatible licensing terms. We seem to think that
royalty-free is good enough in our current policy, but that is
demonstrably false.
* Evaluating whether our IPR policies are adequate to actually provide
enforcement when people violate them. What recourse do we have when
people violate our policies; what recourse do users of our specs
have? Is this sufficient for our needs? If we had different
policies how much better would things be?
* Phil's proposal has been shot down prematurely in my opinion. I
agree that his current version would not fly. However I do think
there are working groups that could make conclusions about their
patent policies and for which doing so would have helped the effort
a lot. I think sacred and dnsext are such working groups. I think
you could get consensus in krb-wg that patented technology is
problematic in our standards. However I'm not sure it would be
useful as I don't think it would save much time. I think
considering whether there are aspects of Phil's proposals it would
be useful to adopt might be useful.
Working through draft-housley-tls-authz-extns gave me a personal
significant lack of confidence in our patent policies and whether they
meet our goals and objectives. I also wonder whether our goals and
objectives may have shifted somewhat since they were written. However
I'm definitely uncomfortable with relying on our existing documents in
any real dispute.
In conclusion, I think Larry's proposed rechartering is an appropriate
contribution to this list. While we may not ultimately decide to
follow his course of action, I think it an appropriate contribution.
I do not think he is attempting to DOS the process and believe he is
participating in good faith.
--Sam
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf