Stephan Wenger <stewe@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > 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. That's not possible because the IETF policies does not permit free software compatible licensing on Internet drafts published by the IETF. /Simon _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf