>>>>> "Simon" == Simon Josefsson <simon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
Simon> Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@xxxxxxx> writes:
>>>>>>> "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.
Simon> If you replace IBM with 'A Patent Troll', do you think the
Simon> same holds?
I think that such behavior should be presumed not to be a patent
troll. Patent trolls are not known forpromising to give away
royalty-free licenses.
Simon> I think not. If the IETF is going to have a
Simon> policy on this, I believe it is important for the policy to
Simon> treat everyone the same.
The IETf should treat everyone the same. However when we decide
whether we are willing to implement using a patented technology, we as
implementers consider a lot of factors. I think that the history of
the patent and probably even the company needs to be considered there.
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf