A priori IPR choices [Re: Third Last Call: draft-housley-tls-authz-extns]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 19 Oct 2007 at 10:30 +1300, Brian E Carpenter allegedly wrote:
> On 2007-10-19 05:47, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
> > What I would suggest is that new working groups be required to
> > specify the governing IPR rules in their charter, these would be
> > either that all IPR must be offered according to an open grant on
> > W3C terms or that the working group specifies at the outset that
> > RAND terms are acceptable.
> 
> Violent disagreement. That would make all kinds of a priori
> processes kick in for employees of patent-conscious companies, and
> generally inhibit free discussion of initial ideas. Although it's
> messier to confront patent issues later in the process, I believe
> that is much better than constraining participation at the
> beginning.

+1

Otherwise you get into battles over theory and ideology without any of
the information you need to make a decision.  You will still be able
to take your stance once the technical tradeoffs are worked out.

_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]