Re: A priori IPR choices

[Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com>]

On 2007-10-24 00:20, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.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.

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?

    Brian


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