RE: IETF Trust FAQ

["Lawrence Rosen" <lrosen at rosenlaw.com>]

Harald Alvestrand wrote:
> are you still talking about the issue of extracting code from RFCs, or
> have you switched to talking about the IETF's patent policy?

All along in this WG I've been talking about exactly one thing: The freedom
to implement any IETF specification under any open source (and proprietary)
software license. That's what "open standards" mean. Nothing else really
matters. That is the sole purpose for revising the IETF IP policy. That is
the sole reason for IETF.

It was not me but others here who insisted on transforming this discussion
into one about unhelpful distinctions between "code" and "text," and on the
unhelpful concept of "extracting code" to "make/use." The bigger issue is
putting software (whether derived from code or text in an IETF specification
or an original implementation of that specification) to work. That's why I
have insisted all along not only upon a compatible IETF contributor
*copyright* license, but an IETF contributor *patent* license that allows
everyone to make and use software-based products that implement IETF
specifications. (I have written MANY emails on this topic; I have not
switched to a new topic!)

Now it has come to pass that this group charged off and accomplished nothing
of real value except a copyright license that nobody dares rely upon to
implement IETF specifications in actual commercial products. I partly blame
myself for becoming bored and paying scant attention to a lot of emails in
recent months, but regardless of fault this current result is foolish in the
extreme given the person-years that so many people have devoted to this
topic in this WG. 

The problem became clear to me again two days ago when Simon wrote that this
WG may punt the entire issue to another group, the IETF Trust, which will
decide something in private later. That's not an acceptable result. 

It's time to make changes to this WG or create a new one. None of us can
afford to waste more time on meaningless exercises. We need a clear
statement of IETF principles agreeable to everyone who depends on IETF
specifications, and an exercise in drafting by real lawyers who will write
the rules in legally-enforceable terms. This effort cannot be punted
upstairs to unknown others in the IETF Trust. There is too much at stake
here.

/Larry Rosen


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Harald Alvestrand [mailto:harald at alvestrand.no]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2007 10:55 PM
> To: lrosen at rosenlaw.com
> Cc: ipr-wg at ietf.org
> Subject: Re: IETF Trust FAQ
> 
> Lawrence Rosen wrote:
> > Jorge Contreras wrote:
> >
> >> However, if a license is granted
> >> under patents under 3.3.a, it is very limited and only extends to
> >> standards
> >> development work within the IETF.
> >>
> >
> > That is precisely my point, and perhaps Simon's also. Well said!
> >
> But has nothing to do with the extraction of code from RFCs, which is
> what Simon started talking about.
> >
> >> The licenses under 3.3.a (other than 3.3.a.E, see below)
> >> do NOT grant any rights to implement IETF standards
> >> in products.  IETF Contributors are NOT required to grant patent
> >> licenses to implementers.  This has always been IETF's policy, and
> >> there is no ambiguity here.
> >>
> >
> > And that is why this is, and always has been, a policy issue. You can't
> > solve this by merely restating the previous position of IETF that you
> don't
> > care about receiving patent grants from contributors for the making and
> > using of their contributions in both open source and proprietary
> > implementations. This isn't just an engineering game. We create
> standards to
> > enable functional implementations, not for the expressive beauty of the
> > specifications.
> >
> are you still talking about the issue of extracting code from RFCs, or
> have you switched to talking about the IETF's patent policy?
> 
> The latter is not a work item of this WG at this time, but if you want
> to discuss it, please change the subject line.
> 
>                      Harald


_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wg at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg