Mr Crocker. I know you'd rather not give credit to anyone you disagree with, which I suppose leaves only a preference to plagarize the work of others and give undue credit to someone else, say, Vixie [ala the SPF/RMX plagarism in which Vixie was improperly credited for the idea and the real contributors and the originator of the idea were improperly removed***]. However: Since we [the anti-software-patent community -- and the LPF President is an acknowledged leader of that community] mostly collectively dropped the demand for no patents in lieu of a much more pragmatic and cooperative view, a view that I originated and promoted, I think I can say they were persuaded. Of course, that must be very jarring to your world in which I represent no one else's view, and have no valid point of view on any subject with which you disagree. And indeed, I would be unsurprised if your world does not admit that I have a valid point of view even on any subject on which we _do_ happen to agree. I hope I don't rattle your world too much. Or perhaps in your world, the IETF has already adopted a strict no-patent policy. I couldn't tell. How'd that no-patent policy work out in your world? Did it alienate any pro-patent companies? --Dean *** The SPF/RMX issue is just one example of professional dishonesty. Professional dishonesty is very much like academic dishonesty. The IETF is supposed to be a professional organization, an activity of The Internet Society, which is a professional organization. Improper attribution of statements or plagarism, theft of ideas, etc in a referee'd paper would not be acceptable in any professional or scientific journal. Plagarism, theft of ideas, fabrication of statements, etc is unacceptable, under the category of professional dishonesty. Particularly in official interactions by the leadership of the IETF. Academic dishonesty is grounds for expulsion from higher educational institutions. Yet, professional dishonesty at the IETF is grounds for...exactly nothing. It is hard to consider the IETF a professional organization since it adheres to no professional standards. We shouldn't forget this, but it isn't my focus at the moment. Someday, this issue should be addressed. On Thu, 8 Sep 2005, Dave Crocker wrote: > > > > [Note: Not very long ago, I argued persuasively to a large and broad > > movement within the IETF seeking to have the IETF adopt an anti-patent > > position. > > > my memory is slipping worse that I thought. > > i don't recall seeing evidence of the community's being persuaded. > > -- 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