* Eric S. Raymond: > Florian Weimer <fw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>: >> Are you familiar with IETF IPR policies? Microsoft's Sender ID >> license was a perfectly acceptable RAND patent license. > > Yes, I am familiar with those policies. Sender-ID is a perfect > illustration of why they no longer suffice. If the failure of the MADRID WG was a "perfect illustration", there wouldn't be so much disagreement about what it actually means. > RAND is not good enough, not for open-source projects This is certainly not news. Where have you been since mid-2001? At least since the discussion about the W3C patent policy, it's widely known that RAND terms discriminate against Free Software. Similar attempts at reforming IETF's patent policy within the IPR working group were shot down on formal grounds at that time, though. (I haven't followed IETF IPR activities since then, and might have missed a later attempt at a reform.) > and certainly not when IETF policy allows Microsoft to burden > developers with a sublicensing requirement that gives them effective > control of who can write implementations. Guess what? Fees per copy distributed are perfectly valid RAND terms. The "ND" in "RAND" does not extend to business models. _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf