John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote: > --On Monday, 22 October, 2007 21:57 +0200 Norbert Bollow > <nb@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote: > >> 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 can't speak for Larry, but maybe the reason for his focusing on IETF is our culture of agreeing on how things should be done and then (generally) acting accordingly? By contrast e.g. ISO/IEC JTC1 is not following its own policy on patents in any consistent way. > > 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 I've spoken not too long ago with the official of the Swiss Association for Standardization (our country's Member Body of ISO) who is responsible for that kind of thing, and he said that when there's a clear example of a patent-encombered "standard" of some significance that gets approved at the ISO/IEC JTC1 level, he's willing to have Switzerland initiate an appeal against that decision on the basis of patented "standards" being harmful to international commerce. He expressed confidence that we would win that appeal. > > 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. Ok, I'll write up an argument in support of my above assertion. > 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.? I would recommend that in order to be considered acceptable, implementation in GPL'd free software as well as implementation in proprietary closed-source software must both be allowed by the licensing terms of any patents. Greetings, Norbert. -- Norbert Bollow <nb@xxxxxxxxx> http://Norbert.ch President of the Swiss Internet User Group SIUG http://SIUG.ch Working on establishing a non-corrupt and truly /open/ international standards organization http://OpenISO.org _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf