Hi 2009/2/11 Stephan Wenger <stewe@xxxxxxxxx>: > 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 agree that the consensus has been (and still is) that IETF standards do not necessarily have to be royalty-free or unencumbered. I also think this is unfortunate. And yet ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/bcp/bcp79.txt does express a clear preference that "In general, IETF working groups prefer technologies with no known IPR claims or, for technologies with claims against them, an offer of royalty-free licensing." I suspect that this preference is not solely for ideological reasons or because of any misconceptions or misunderstandings. But rather for clear, practical and pragmatic reasons. I think a concern here is that the IPR disclosure in this case is crafted in such a way as to give the impression that you can "freely implement" the standard ("No licence requirements") when in fact you can't use it to perform authorisation based on legally binding agreements. This does seem to be simply misleading and I am not sure why they have crafted such a statement. Surely, to clear the low bar of permissability, all they need to do is disclose the patent and not offer any licencing information at all. I'm sorry if I smell a rat. > > 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. > I think this is a question of governance. Firstly it's not just the FSF who are concerned about patents in standards. The South African government, for example, have a strong commitment to using standards which are available under royalty free terms. As do many other state and other actors. And we all have an interest in using the internet and IETF standards. Not all of these stakeholders have the time or expertise to engage more fully in IETF standards development. But they still have legitimate cause to be concerned about appropriation of basic internet standards. And to raise those concerns on the mailing lists of the IETF. It seems you (and some others) are suggesting that in order to be heard at the IETF you need to clear some sort of hurdle. I fully agree that direct participation and involvement is the best way to influence and drive agendas in standards organisations. But those who do participate must also understand that they have some responsibility to a broader community. Particularly when we are talking about internet standards. I think the IETF strives to be more than a place in which a sufficiently driven and self-interested person or organisation can promote standards which advance their economic or ideological position. In fact I know it does. Regards Bob > > Regards, > Stephan > > > > > _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf