[I stripped cc's from this reply] Brian Carpenter wrote: > > 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. Scott Brim responded: > +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. > Strong -1 to Brian's and Scott's comments. Isn't it preferable to get into early battles over IP rules--and make sure those rules are clear to WG participants--before we have wasted our time and resources developing specifications that half the world (or more) can't implement? Has anyone ever suggested that we inhibit "free discussion of initial ideas"? Please don't raise silly arguments like that. Among the most exciting discussions of ideas are those that come from having to design around a patent that isn't available for free. /Larry Rosen > -----Original Message----- > From: Scott Brim [mailto:swb@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 3:12 PM > To: Brian E Carpenter > Cc: Simon Josefsson; ietf@xxxxxxxx; Tim Polk > Subject: A priori IPR choices [Re: Third Last Call:draft-housley-tls- > authz-extns] > > 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 mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf