Hi, On 2/11/09 3:21 PM, "Bob Jolliffe" <bobjolliffe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > [...] > I think (I hope) their is a general consensus that IETF > standards should be freely implementable and usable for the manner in > which they are intended. > The phrase "freely implementable and usable" may be the key misconception/misunderstanding by the FSF people. As several hundred IPR disclosures with RAND terms against issued standards track RFCs show, the consensus (at least in those cases) in the IETF has been, and still is, that IETF RFCs do not necessarily have to be royalty-free or unencumbered. Personally, I view those as "free" just as well; my definition of freedom is somewhat different than the FSF's definition. I fully understand that this is not aligned with FSF's position on standards in general. The way to address this misalignment is to work in the IETF towards an FSF-compatible patent regime, and not rant about one specific draft that somehow got on the FSF's campaign radar. The best way, IMO, to work towards such a regime, would be that FSF activists, instead of wasting their time on mailbombing, invent great new concepts, protocols, and write them down in the form of Internet drafts, and make them freely available in the IETF and elsewhere. Regards, Stephan _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf