John C Klensin <john-ietf(_at_)jck(_dot_)com> wrote:
--On Monday, 22 October, 2007 21:57 +0200 Norbert Bollow
<nb(_at_)bollow(_dot_)ch> wrote:
John C Klensin <john-ietf(_at_)jck(_dot_)com> wrote:
Larry, with all due respect, if you substitute "ISO/IEC JTC1"
or "IEEE" (at least in the computer and communications areas
for both) in the above statements, they will still be true.
The IETF is not particularly special in this regard.
But the IETF seems to be singled out, in Larry's recent notes
and elsewhere, as the one body that needs to treat these things
differently.
I can't speak for Larry, but maybe the reason for his focusing on
IETF is our culture of agreeing on how things should be done and
then (generally) acting accordingly?
By contrast e.g. ISO/IEC JTC1 is not following its own policy on
patents in any consistent way.
I agree. There are very good reasons to insist in all fora
where standards for protocols and data formats are developed
that such standards must not be patent-encumbered.
But I see no evidence, at least in the ISO-level correspondence
that I follow, that they are being pursued with equal
persistence anywhere else. I suspect that is because the
Member Bodies refuse to keep taking the question up over and
over again
I've spoken not too long ago with the official of the Swiss
Association for Standardization (our country's Member Body of ISO)
who is responsible for that kind of thing, and he said that when
there's a clear example of a patent-encombered "standard" of some
significance that gets approved at the ISO/IEC JTC1 level, he's
willing to have Switzerland initiate an appeal against that
decision on the basis of patented "standards" being harmful to
international commerce. He expressed confidence that we would win
that appeal.
However the economic importance of insisting that standards
must not be patent-encumbered is increasing. Therefore the
decisions of the past can not validly be accepted as strong
arguments against Larry's current initiative.
First, no persuasive evidence has been produced on this list
that this economic importance is, in fact, increasing.
Ok, I'll write up an argument in support of my above assertion.
I also note that we can easily get onto a slippery slope here.
Many companies view the GPL to be an encumbrance no less severe
than the patent policies of other companies. Perhaps it is even
more severe because encumbrances associated with patents that
can be made to go away by the payment of money are less
complicated to deal with (if one is willing to spent the money)
than encumbrances under the GPS, which just don't go away.
Would you recommend that IETF not permit any materials that
might be encumbered under the GPL, etc.?
I would recommend that in order to be considered acceptable,
implementation in GPL'd free software as well as implementation in
proprietary closed-source software must both be allowed by the
licensing terms of any patents.
Greetings,
Norbert.
--
Norbert Bollow <nb(_at_)bollow(_dot_)ch> http://Norbert.ch
President of the Swiss Internet User Group SIUG http://SIUG.ch
Working on establishing a non-corrupt and
truly /open/ international standards organization http://OpenISO.org
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf