Richard M Stallman wrote:
So what - the IETF can and should issue standards TO ANYONE WHO WANTS ONE - it is not the IETF's charter to use its technology process to force change in the world, That is the FSF's game. Its also NOT the IETF's charter to use its refusal to issue a standard as a weapon.Without debating your point about the terminology, the IPR workinggroup was concerned with copyright as well.Patents raise an issue of whether people will be allowed to use the standard. Copyrights raise an issue of writing a spec that the IETF can publish.
Both issues are important for the IETF,No BOTH issues are important to the FSF - the IETF already has a charter and billions of dollars worth of IP built under those pre-existing contractual agreements.
No it doesn't - it gives Harald a reason for 'suspending me when I point out that IPR must by its very definition pertain to patent and copyrights equally.but aside from that, they are totally different. The term "IPR" encourages people to suppose theyare similar, and lump them together.
No its an obstacle to your points being persuasive - its that brick wall FSF keeps running into.That is an obstacle to thinking clearly about the issues.
Because the history of the IETF is that the ANY AND ALL USES clause pertains to both and there is too much standard process IP out their under that license to turn away from it.I won't say it is impossible to resist the influence of the term "IPR" and think properly about each issue despite it. But why use a term that exerts a bad influence? Better to avoid it.
_______________________________________________ Ipr-wg mailing list Ipr-wg at ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg