Stephan Wenger <stewe(_at_)stewe(_dot_)org> writes:
Hi,
On 2/11/09 3:21 PM, "Bob Jolliffe" <bobjolliffe(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:
[...]
I think (I hope) their is a general consensus that IETF
standards should be freely implementable and usable for the manner in
which they are intended.
The phrase "freely implementable and usable" may be the key
misconception/misunderstanding by the FSF people. As several hundred IPR
disclosures with RAND terms against issued standards track RFCs show, the
consensus (at least in those cases) in the IETF has been, and still is, that
IETF RFCs do not necessarily have to be royalty-free or unencumbered.
Personally, I view those as "free" just as well; my definition of freedom is
somewhat different than the FSF's definition.
I fully understand that this is not aligned with FSF's position on standards
in general. The way to address this misalignment is to work in the IETF
towards an FSF-compatible patent regime, and not rant about one specific
draft that somehow got on the FSF's campaign radar. The best way, IMO, to
work towards such a regime, would be that FSF activists, instead of wasting
their time on mailbombing, invent great new concepts, protocols, and write
them down in the form of Internet drafts, and make them freely available in
the IETF and elsewhere.
That's not possible because the IETF policies does not permit free
software compatible licensing on Internet drafts published by the IETF.
/Simon
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf