+1 Regards, Chuck ------------- Chuck Powers, Motorola, Inc phone: 512-427-7261 mobile: 512-576-0008 > -----Original Message----- > From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On > Behalf Of ned+ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Sent: Friday, February 13, 2009 10:14 AM > To: Sam Hartman > Cc: ietf@xxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: FSF's comment on draft-housley-tls-authz-extns > > > ... > > > I'm sorry, I don't see this at all. I appreciate that you > quoted the > > text in question. However I don't see anything in the language you > > quote that applies differently to either users or developers. > > Well, there's something of an exemption for developers > producing generic > uilding block software. But I take your point to be that a > developer who, say, > puts in specialized support for a Redphone critical extension > (item one of the > four), would clearly be infringing. > > > The text is saying that the transport mechanisms described in the > > Housley draft are not covered by the patent. However the > text goes on > > to say that some ways in which an implementation might employ those > > transport mechanisms would be covered by the patent. As I read the > > text, both developers and users who used the mechanisms in > the Housley > > draft in any of these four ways would infringe the patent, Redphone > > claims. > > Nicely put. I agree with this assessment. > > > However I'll also note that there are significant uses of the > > transport mechanisms in the Housley draft that are > interesting both to > > the free software and IETF communities that fall well outside these > > four areas. In particular, transporting in-band group > memberships and > > authorization/attribute assertions see.ms to fall outside > these areas. > > Exactly. > > > I can understand why the GNU project would not choose to ship an > > extension to GNU TLS that used this transport to send agreement > > locations. > > Sure, that would clearly infringe. The question to my mind is > whether or not > this is an overly onerous restriction. I don't think it is > but others may > disagree. > > > However, it is completely absurd to claim that because some > > infrastructure building block could (by writing additional software) > > be used in a manner that infringes a patent that no free software > > version of that building block can exist. As an example, the FSF > > ships a compiler collection that can be used to infringe a number of > > patents in the hands of someone who has infringing source code. The > > GNU/Linux kernel includes a TCP implementation that can be used to > > infringe Redphone's patent. > > This is the point I was trying to make in my earlier > response. There are many > use-case patents built on top of pretty much any protocol > building block you > can think of. If we adopt the theory, which is implicit in many of the > objections I've seem to this document, that we cannot work on > protocol building > blocks when such use-case patents exist, we'll effectively be > out of business. > > I will also point out that the list of IPR disclosures > includes very few of > these patents. Demanding the disclosure of all such patents > participants are > aware of would be ... interesting. > > Ned > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf