Re: [TLS] Proto write-up for TLS exporter

[Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman at vpnc.org>]

At 10:44 AM +0200 5/14/09, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>Paul, allow me to explain what I originally intended and how you
>interpreted it:
>
>My position: I don't support tls-extractor on standards track if I
>believe there are unclear patent threats and/or no acceptable free
>software license.

Ah. That is good to hear. It certainly was not clear from your original message.

>Your interpretation: Simon doesn't support tls-extractor on standards
>track as long as there is _someone_ that believes there are unclear
>patent threats and/or no acceptable free software licenses.

Yes, that is how I (and others offline) interpreted it. Very glad to hear we were wrong.

>I stand by my position.  Your interpretation of what I said is not what
>I intended and I completely disagree with that interpretation.  Don't
>put those words in my mouth.  I agree that your interpretation is
>counter-productive.  English isn't my native tongue, but even after
>re-reading what I wrote I don't see it saying what you believe it said.

We can simply agree to disagree on that last part. As for your English: I have absolutely no criticisms of it. I always appreciate people who use English as a second language, given that I have no second language. I also know that I am quite lucky to have English as my first language, and to be a professional writer in it.

> > Further, it is still absurd and obstructionist to say that a document
>> cannot be published on standards track as long as someone thinks it
>> has one or more "unclear patent threat against it". Anyone can write
>> an IPR statement that is unclear to someone.
>
>Sure, and that act should rightly delay publication until it has been
>discussed.  I believe the patent disclaimer needs to be considered
>before publication.  That does not mean it should stop the document.

That works for me.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium