Re: A priori IPR choices [Re: Third Last Call:draft-housley-tls-authz-extns]

[Simon Josefsson <simon at josefsson.org>]

Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> writes:

>> 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.

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.

/Simon

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf