Lawrence Rosen wrote:
Chuck Powers wrote:
+1
That is a legal quagmire that the IETF (like all good standards
development groups) must avoid.
Chuck is not alone in saying that, as you have just seen.
These are the very people who refused to add "patent policy" to the charter
of the previous IPR WG, and who controlled "consensus" on that point last
time.
To be precise: "Last time" was at the San Francisco IETF meeting, March
16-22 2003, and I was the one "controlling consensus".
The minutes (at http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/03mar/132.htm ) show
this conclusion, after much discussion:
1. do you wish this group to recharter to cdhange the IETF's IPR policy
hum for (some)
hom anti (more)
fairly clear consensus against rechartering. anyone disagree?
harald: will verified on mailing list, will lead to some debate. if
consensus is reached against rechartering... the IETF will not consider
proposals to create or reactivate IPR wg before people with
compelling arg to do so. those should be different than what
prevented so far.
Despite the abysmal spelling quality, it was pretty clear at the time
that the arguments presented were not compelling. I haven't seen
significant new arguments in the meantime; that doesn't mean they don't
exist, just that I haven't seen them.
Harald
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf