--On Monday, 22 October, 2007 21:57 +0200 Norbert Bollow <nb@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote: >> > But we're talking here about IETF standards, specifications >> > that are prepared cooperatively and for free by talented >> > individuals, companies and countries around the world. These >> > specifications are intended for implementation everywhere to >> > facilitate communications among us all. >> > ... >> >> Larry, with all due respect, if you substitute "ISO/IEC JTC1" >> or "IEEE" (at least in the computer and communications areas >> for both) in the above statements, they will still be true. >> The IETF is not particularly special in this regard. But the IETF seems to be singled out, in Larry's recent notes and elsewhere, as the one body that needs to treat these things differently. > I agree. There are very good reasons to insist in all fora > where standards for protocols and data formats are developed > that such standards must not be patent-encumbered. But I see no evidence, at least in the ISO-level correspondence that I follow, that they are being pursued with equal persistence anywhere else. I suspect that is because the Member Bodies refuse to keep taking the question up over and over again, and that, if the IETF had procedures similar or equivalent to theirs, we would not be hearing about it again on this list. >> To me, the question is simply one of whether trying to insist >> on an unencumbered regime (whether for technical, economic, or >> moral/ religious reasons) is important enough to justify >> rejecting, a priori, any encumbered technology. The IETF has >> decided, repeatedly, that the answer is "no" and "we want to >> look at these things on a case-by-case basis and evaluate the >> tradeoffs". While the part that follows the "no" differs, >> that is the same conclusion reached by ISO, IEC, IEEE, and >> others. > > However the economic importance of insisting that standards > must not be patent-encumbered is increasing. Therefore the > decisions of the past can not validly be accepted as strong > arguments against Larry's current initiative. First, no persuasive evidence has been produced on this list that this economic importance is, in fact, increasing. The economic importance may well be increasing for some categories of encumbrances, or for some categories of implementations but I don't believe a statement this broad can be justified. Second, while such increasing importance, were it to exist, would justify a review of the policies, it doesn't automatically lead to the conclusion that Larry (and presumably you) support. In addition, "the past" isn't a long time here. The IETF policies were not established a decade or two ago and never reviewed since: the question has been raised over and over again as to whether the IETF, or various WGs, want to review the policies, and the answer comes back "no". So, even if the economic importance has increased as you suggest, or other arguments for unencumbered software exist, how often do you think that requires review of the policies? Once every few years? Once a year? Once a month? Once every two weeks until you get your way and then never again? There comes a point beyond which the raising of this position is a DoS attack on the IETF's getting other work done. I also note that we can easily get onto a slippery slope here. Many companies view the GPL to be an encumbrance no less severe than the patent policies of other companies. Perhaps it is even more severe because encumbrances associated with patents that can be made to go away by the payment of money are less complicated to deal with (if one is willing to spent the money) than encumbrances under the GPS, which just don't go away. Would you recommend that IETF not permit any materials that might be encumbered under the GPL, etc.? >> If you want to pursue this further, I think it would be >> helpful if you started supplying arguments that we haven't >> heard, repeatedly, before. > > Do you have a list of the arguments that you have heard so > often already that you're not interested in hearing them again? I have seen nothing new in any of Larry's postings, or Simon's postings, or other postings supporting their general positions, in the last two months, so perhaps you could use that list as a starting point. best, john _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf