>>>>> "Simon" == Simon Josefsson <simon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
Simon> "Frank Ellermann" <nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> Simon Josefsson wrote:
>>> I would even consider a requirement that in order to move
>>> beyond Proposed Standard, a protocol needs to have a free
>>> implementation available.
>> Tricky, e.g. my BOCU-1 implementation is "free" in a certain
>> sense, but I'm also sure that I don't have a license.
Simon> Do you refer to the IBM patent on BOCU? As far as I have
Simon> understood, IBM promised to grant a free patent license to
Simon> people who requested it, but people never received a
Simon> license despite requesting one. If this is accurate, I
Simon> think it is a good example of a technology that should not
Simon> be standardized and should not be promoted by the
Simon> community.
It seems very unlikely to me that IBM would choose to assert such a
patent against an implementation after having promised to give a free
license.
If we didn't know about the patent we would be happy to go use the
technology. Yet somehow that we know about the patent and we have
strong reason to suspect that we will never be bothered by the patent,
we are unwilling to depend on the technology? That makes no sense to
me.
It seems to me that in some sense that disclosing a patent should not
make us less willing to use something. This is especially true when
the disclosing party is not obligated to make the disclosure.
Disclosing a patent along with an implication that the patent will be
enforced or that the patent is high value should make us less willing
to use a technology. I'll even except that absent royalty-free
licensing a typical patent disclosure has the implication of desire to
enforce the patent.
If IBM had implied that they cared a lot that people
actually ask for the license; if IBM had attempted to assert the
patent or threatened to do so, I'd agree with you that we did not use
the technology. However by promising to give out free licenses and by
not even caring enough about the patent to set up a licensing
infrastructure that actually works, I think IBM sends a rather
different message.
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf