![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Willie John Sullivan wrote:
The Free Software Foundation and the GNU Project oppose publication of "Transport Layer Security (TLS) Authorization Extensions" (draft-housley-tls-authz-extns) as a proposed standard. We do not think that RedPhone Security's 1026 disclosure filing provides sufficient assurance to free software users that they will not beconsidered in violation of RedPhone's patent.The Licensing Declaration starts out right:RedPhone Security hereby asserts that the techniques for sending and receiving authorizations defined in TLS Authorizations Extensions (version draft-housley-tls-authz-extns-07.txt) do not infringe upon RedPhone Security's intellectual property rights (IPR).However, it is then followed by an important caveat:The values provided in, and the processing required by the authorizations ("authz_data" in the Protocol Document) sent or received using the techniques defined in TLS Authorizations Extensions are not specified in the Protocol Document. When an implementation generates the authorizations or processes these authorizations in any of the four ways described below, then this practice may be covered by RedPhone Security's patent claims.It appears that RedPhone's disclaimer covers software developers who implement the standard in a vague sense, but not the people who then actually use that software. A patent disclaimer must clearly cover both developers and users to be acceptable. Furthermore, the caveat is not written exclusively, leaving the door open for further claims. It does not say that the four ways described are the *only* practices that may be covered.
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.