ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: A priori IPR choices

2007-10-23 18:29:32
On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 13:34:45 +1300 Brian E Carpenter 
<brian(_dot_)e(_dot_)carpenter(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:
On 2007-10-24 00:20, Simon Josefsson wrote:
Norbert Bollow <nb(_at_)bollow(_dot_)ch> writes:
...
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.

I think that is a good recommendation, and I support it.

I would even consider a requirement that in order to move beyond
Proposed Standard, a protocol needs to have a free implementation
available.

There are two *very* different suggestions above.

Norbert specifically suggests GPL compatibility as a requirement.
That is a very stringent requirement, because of the way the GPL
is written. Simon suggests the existence of a free implementation
as part of the IETF's implementation interop requirements; depending
on the definition of "free", that is a much milder requirement.

In fact it seems like a quite natural extension of the rule
established in RFC 2026 section 4.1.2, first paragraph:
"If patented or otherwise controlled technology
 is required for implementation, the separate implementations must
 also have resulted from separate exercise of the licensing process."

On 2007-10-24 08:06, Sam Hartman wrote:

Let me suggest starting with a lesser goal.  Try to build a consensus
that unless there is a good reason to do otherwise, it needs to be
possible to write an open-source implementation of a standard and that
the absence of such an implementation should be considered a red flag
when advancing beyond proposed.

s/red flag/yellow flag/ perhaps, but I agree this is a very reasonable
goal, and as far as I can see, essentially consistent with RFC 2026
as quoted above.

On 2007-10-24 02:58, Norbert Bollow wrote:
...
That's IMO not quite strong enough.  There are patent licenses which
don't require to pay a fee but which impose other conditions that are
so severe that having to pay a fee would be by far the lesser evil.

How about: 'Should be possible to implement without having to ask for
permission or pay a fee'?

That will never fly. For good reason, many patent holders insist
on reciprocity conditions, and that seems to require an explicit
request and acknowledgement.

And that will never fly (IANAL) with the GPL and so here we sit at an 
impasse again.  So either a GPL implementation is important to 
interoperability in a given space or it is not.  If it is important to 
interoperabilty, then this is a showstopper.  If not, maybe not.

On 2007-10-24 07:57, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:

If we get two RANDZ proposals and one thats only RAND we don't 
need to talk about the third one unless the IPR changes.

I think we do, if the third one is clearly technically superior.
Why is the cost of a patent automatically more important than
*any* engineering cost or benefit?

It's not the cost, but the incurred limit on interoperability.  

Scott K

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