> I DO want IETF to >adopt policies concerning the disclosure of patents when known by WG >participants, and the mandatory licensing of those patents for free by those >patent owners who actually participate in and contribute to a specification, >or alternatively the withdrawal of that specification as an IETF standard. The IETF already has policies about disclosures of patents when known by working group participants, as you well know. This sounds like you want the IETF as whole to make this decision prior to any work of a working group, and without any working group consideration of whether the benefits of a licensed technology support its selection for a particular context. >Otherwise, to speak freely here, patent-encumbered specifications that we >waste our time creating are useless for open source and many proprietary >implementations. "waste our time" is a pretty loaded phrase. "open source" also covers a wide variety of licenses, and it's only when the open source developer actually sees the patent and the offered license that this determination can be made. Cisco has probably disclosed the most patents in an IETF context (163 disclosures in any case; I'm having trouble getting the tool to give me comparisons), but its licenses don't seem to have allowed both open source and proprietary implementations. Yet they clearly are encumbered. Patent-encumbered specification that *we choose to develop with the knowledge of those patents* may be in the best interests of the Internet, at least as well as an open process can determine. We'll never have perfect knowledge, obviously, as someone not participating may end up claiming patent coverage. But ruling it out without letting a working group balance technology and license is worse than where we are now, at least in my view. >But I go beyond where we are already. The policy we need should not be >debated here yet. This is too big a list for that discussion. Funny, you objected that it should be here the last time I suggested that the IPR working group list was the best place for this discussion. You said it was strangled in committee the last time the community debated it there. >What I request is that we charter the IETF IPR-WG to propose policies and >procedures, consistent with the worldwide mission of IETF, which will result >in IETF specifications unencumbered by restrictive, non-free patents. Ah, I see why you appear to have changed your position. You actually want the result you're arguing for built into the charter of the IPR working group, beforehand without letting the community actually discuss it. Thanks for re-affirming my faith in your consistency. >That's a simple charter for the IPR-WG. Not so simple perhaps to guarantee >consensus even on definitions, and perhaps it won't result in a single >formal proposal, but it needs to be addressed. The IPR-WG is an appropriate >place for that activity. > If you want to argue for a change in the charter of the IPR working group, you can certainly do it on that list. But, please, do realize you have to get the community to agree on the charter goals first. No one in the IETF, including the IESG, has the right to change the goals of a working group without community input and agreement. The ability to review and comment on that kind of thing is something a lot of people value around here. Speaking only for myself, Ted Hardie _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf