More in-line...
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."
Lawrence Rosen wrote:
I am absolutely opposed to any IETF IP policy that results in industry standards that have fundamental patent impediments to their implementation in open source --and for that matter in proprietary --software. Jorge just confirmed this to the group, in case anyone doubts that our current policy has this effect.
+1
Fortunately any "patented algorithm" is AFAIK legally still nonsense in my part of the world. And I've no problem with a license saying "feel free to use this unless you threaten us with some of your patent claims".
That's BTW the main reason why I pushed for something in the direction of "share alike". I hate "embrace, extend, and extinguish" strategies <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace%2C_extend%2C_and_extinguish>, and if folks try it anyway they should at least be forced to do this in the IETF with whatever it takes them to get the required "No Objection" by the IESG and the IAB.
Gee Frank - How is the IETF's process any different?
Frank
__________________________________________e what needed to be
identified.
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.
No comment.
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.
Wow - didnt I say this too about a year or so ago?
_____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. >>
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wg at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg
_______________________________________________ Ipr-wg mailing list Ipr-wg at ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg