At 3:15 PM -0400 7/20/09, Dean Anderson wrote:
I am against this standard because of its patent encumbrances and
non-free licencing terms.
In the past, I think that Dean Anderson has stated that he is not a lawyer
(although I can't find the specific reference). Note that the statement above
is legal advice: he is saying that a particular protocol is encumbered. Readers
of this thread may or may not want to listen to his legal advice.
The working group did not get any clear
answers on what particular patents this draft may infringe, but a patent
holder (Certicom) did assert an IPR disclosure (1004) listing many
patents.
That statement did not say "we have a patent that encumbers the specific
documents in question".
We have no alternative but to accept the Certicom disclosure
statements as meaning that the TLS Extractor draft is patent-encumbered
without a universal, free defensive license.
Who is "we"? Dean Anderson is not a leader in the IETF, nor of the TLS protocol
or developer community. "We" have plenty of alternatives, for almost any value
of "we" that make sense here.
--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf