On 2007-10-19 12:10, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
[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"?
If you work for a large company with a managed approach to
innovation and IPR handling, you simply aren't allowed
to discuss freely in an SDO unless the SDO's IPR regime
has been approved by the company. If you have a different
IPR regime for every WG, the stage that in the current IETF
is a wide and open discussion (including a BOF), when
innovative ideas are put on the table, would be replaced
by a careful dance among elephants about hypothetical IPR
covering hypothetical technology. That does indeed inhibit
free discussion of technical ideas.
I don't think we want that, which is why I believe the
IETF's IPR regime is just fine as it is.
Brian
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@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf