-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Mark Lentczner wrote:
|> My views on the topic are simple : Whatever wants to become an official
|> "standard" cannot be encumbered with any kind of patents or licences. A
|> standard must be public domain, free for anybody to comply with, use or
|> implement without any kind of licences or constraints from any entity.
|> Otherwise it cannot be a "standard", period.
|
|
| This view has a lot to commend it. It is not, however, the view of the
| IETF. They are willing to consider technology for standards that have
| patent or other intellectual property claims. And they are willing to
| consider technology for standards that requires a license, even a
| license that require royalties. Please see RFC 2026, section 10; and
| RFC 3668, sections 2, 8 and 10.
|
| I do not mention this to sway you one way or the other, just to let you
| know.
Good on you for saying this and I think that many of us know it. The
"big deal" here is that the license they're trying to use (which is a
"RAND" license) was applicable to Caller-ID but so far as we know is not
applicable to SPF which is where the standard is sitting right now. In
spite of this the powers that be on the committee are continuing to
insist that this is the correct license and we are continuing to insist
that it is not as SPF was developed independently of Caller-ID and to
our knowledge is not encumbered in the same way that Caller-ID was.
- --
Chuck Mead
csm(_at_)moongroup(_dot_)com
Chief Tech @ http://moongroup.com - http://anirononline.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFA9bCav6Gjsf2pQ0oRAtTzAJ99N2K9yvC7SwGiS9cKQ3ivFHOdywCfZiiO
PMvN1o43s9ad0cxhy5iwCZk=
=E9zJ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----