On 19 Oct 2004, Paul Vixie wrote: > > I've been around for decades and know at least a few people who have > > written more than 10,000 more or less freely redistributable and popular > > lines. Few of them are members of either your or Mr. Stallman's > > organizations, although both of you frequently claim to speak for us. I suspect that if one were to count lines of source or number of packages, you would find the majority of "open source" code to be under GPL. The suggestion Mr. Schryver makes above is pretty plainly wrong. If open source were a parliamentary system, Stallman and the FSF would be the prime minister and ruling party. He represents a lot of people. But of course, the definition of "open source" is itself somewhat vague. I would not, for example, count Paul Vixie or ISC as an "open source" proponent; because of his support software patents, his advocacy of the BSD copyright which allows persons to take this code private if it suits them, and because Vixie/ISC trademarked other people's software (BIND). This is all pretty antithetical to the open source goals and mindset as I see it. As a short aside: The BSD copyright wasn't made for "open source", but for allowing the public to exploit and commercialize the University of California's government sponsored work. BSD code was originally not open (though essentially free) due to the inclusion of ATT code. It just wasn't necessary to pay Berkeley, except a nominal fee for the 9track tapes. I suspect that if the BSD code wasn't DARPA/HP/DEC (and later OSF) funded, it would very likely have had a copyright more similar to other Univerity developed code like AFS. I don't mean to ignore the free software disposition of people at CSRG, but developers rarely have control of such decisions. Most universities have technology licensing departments to obtain money for University work. The BSD Copyright was appropriate 15 years ago, for the output of the CSRG and other work. This codebase certainly assisted the open source movement. But the BSD copyright isn't really "open source" by many definitions. The frequently cited problem is the profiteering and re-privatization of derived proprietary propducts. Some groups haven't liked the infectious nature of the GPL, but nearly all reject the BSD equivalent copyright. But such terms as open source are often vague and hard to pin down because they mean different things to different people. I recall that Sun once tried to trademark "Open Systems"---if successful this would have turned things upside-down: making the term "Open Systems" proprietary to Sun! Of course, at about the same time Scott McNeely also said that Motif would never be shipped by Sun. That turned out to be wrong, too, in small part to my credit. > in particular, neither i personally nor isc as a company shares the > views expressed here by mr. raymond with respect to ietf's patent > policies. i think of myself, and of isc and the various people who > have written the software isc publishes, as part of what mr. raymond > calls "the 5%", and i agree with mr. schryver that mr. raymond's > claims of representation don't help me and might, by creating > misunderstanding amongst the consumers of "open source" software, hurt > me. I think that's probably right: You are part of the 5% not least because you're pro-patent. Mr. Raymond, Mr. Stallman nor other represent you because you aren't really proponent of open source. You're welcome to your point of view, but its substantially different from the open source point of view. If preventing you from using open source software as the basis for your proprietary products harms you (and I suppose it would in your case), then I can forsee your concerns. I suppose if Eric Raymond promotes the idea that open source software should be free of patents, impossible to take private, and free of trademark encumbrances, then I suppose that could hurt //Vixie// and open source profiteers. However, it would prevent open source profiteers from harming the open source community. None of this is purely hypothetical: EG what Vixie did with the BIND trademark was very similar to the Linux trademark schenanigans a few years ago) I think most open source proponents would agree that the proper way to make money on open source is to package it or offer consulting services to improve it keeping the modifications open source or install it or administer it, etc. I think most would agree that the wrong way is to try to use open source software as the basis for a proprietary product, by making propietary improvements that then aren't shared. Some people disagree. They are welcome to their opinion. I wish those people wouldn't try to pass themselves off as open source proponents. I can acknowledge that being pro-patent/closed source is a point of view, and I can even make accomodation and compromise to work with those people for the greater good. And if some think I'm a radical proponent of open source, let me say that I can even acknowledge that there are presently closed source products that are superior to open source products. It is just my belief that this will change over the long term. Eric Raymond's error is not about the fundamental nature of open source (at least not what I've seen), but his view that the IETF should itself promote open source. This might be nice to wish for. Eric's error (if it could be called that) is just that this is not realizable at present as I previously explained. On Wed, 20 Oct 2004, Paul Vixie wrote: > somebody asked me... > > > What is your position on these issues then? > > i think that anyone who comments on the mailing list, or in WG meeting > minutes, or as a draft author, should have to disclose any relevant IPR > of which they are then aware or of which they become subsequently aware, > whether or not such awareness is due to prospective benefit by them, or > their employers, or their heirs or assigns. The above is current policy. > i also think contributors to ietf specifications, whether verbally, or > in e-mail forums, or as authors, should have to quit-claim any > relevant IPR except that which they have disclosed in advance of a > draft being submitted to the RFC editor. A verbal quit-claim is not worth the paper its not written on. Such worthless assurances should be viewed very skeptically. An assurance needs to be more substantial. For example, the G.723 patent holders formed a licensing consortium to handle the licensing, which was affordable to small developers and open to everyone. > i think that the ensuing ietf-isoc-malamud hairball should pay for IPR > searches of all final-drafts before they reach the RFC editor, to get some > kind of reasonable belief that all relevant IPR has in fact been disclosed, > even though no warranties as to IPR should be expressed or implied. This is not current policy. IPR searches are often a bad idea for developers. (Yes, there is more than a little irony, here) I had an opportunity to discuss the issue several years ago with Genuity's patent attorney (I was on the initial list of inventors on a provisioning system patent). She recommended strongly against doing searches, since that could be used against you in an infringement case. The fact of having done a search would be evidence that you were aware of the patent being infringed and thus the infringement is intentional. The penalties for intentional infringement are more severe than for unintentional infringement. > if working groups want a standard to use protected IPR, their only > responsibility is to ensure that all IPR claims are properly disclosed. > > if implementors want to build products on a standard that uses protected > IPR, they should be able to read the IPR legend in the RFC and make an > informed business decision as to whether they like what they see. This is also current policy. --Dean -- Av8 Internet Prepared to pay a premium for better service? www.av8.net faster, more reliable, better service 617 344 9000 _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf