[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Purpose of this WG [Re: IETF Trust FAQ]
On 2007-01-17 09:41, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
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.
Actually not. "Open standards" is generally taken to mean
one or both of openly developed and openly available. Usability for
open source is a joint attribute of the standard and the technology
it describes.
Nothing else really
matters. That is the sole purpose for revising the IETF IP policy.
That may be your sole purpose. As far as I know, the purpose
is exclusively defined at
http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/ipr-charter.html. As the chairs
have said, when that charter has been executed, the IETF will
need to determine whether the WG should be closed, or rechartered
for new work.
That is
the sole reason for IETF.
The IETF's mission is defined in RFC 3935 and is not what you say.
And this is definitely not the list to discuss the IETF's mission.
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!)
But, it's a topic that is out of scope in this WG at this time.
Note, if there was an emerging consensus among active technical
participants in the IETF for a change in our patent policy, that would
be a very legitimate proposal for a General Area BOF. I don't exclude
that happening, but for the last ten years or so we haven't seen
such a consensus form.
<snip>
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.
You misunderstand. The plan of record is that when this WG (mainly
active IETF engineers) has decided the effects it wishes the copyright
language to produce, and the IETF has reached general consensus on
that, then the IETF Trust, which is a servant of the IETF, will take
legal advice to craft the necessary legal language.
Brian
_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wg at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg