Regards,
Chuck
-------------
Chuck Powers,
Motorola, Inc
phone: 512-427-7261
mobile:
512-576-0008
From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Hallam-Baker, Phillip
Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2009 4:18 PM
To: TSG; John Levine
Cc: ietf@xxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: Previous consensus on not changing patent policy (Re:Referencesto Redphone's "patent")Do you think that the IETF has changed direction though?
Methinks not.
This is one of those issues where there is a faction that will defend the status quo regardless of the flaws that are revealed. They will wait till the end of the discussion and announce that there is no consensus to do anything differently so they must win.
I really do not understand the justification for not allowing a WG to state the IPR policy that will apply during the charter process. If we are going to have people volunteer time an effort to create a standard they have the right to know at the start whether the result will be encumbered or if one particular party gets to set up a toll booth.
In fact there are two very different status quos. There is the defacto status quo and there is the de jure status quo. And it is rather interesting that on every one of my pet IETF peeves, my position is the defacto status quo and it is only the official status quo that is out of line.
Officially a working group does not need to set an IPR standard up front.
In practice every working group in any part of the IETF I participate in has to deliver a standard that is compliant with the W3C policy that every essential part of the spec be implementable without using encumbered technology. Attempts to do otherwise are totally futile.
I guess it is possible that things are different outside the security, applications and operations side, but I find it very hard to believe that a necessary to implement technology at the Internet level could be encumbered without creating a blogstorm of slashdot proportions.
Officially the specs are in the obsolete text format
In practice they are written in XML and the engineers implementing them use either the HTML version or buy the O'Rielly nutshell book.
Officially there are three stages in the standards process
In practice there are two stages.
I really wish it was possible to have a discussion on this topic without getting condescending lectures as to why it is absolutely unthinkable to change the official status quo when folk are already doing exactly what I have been suggesting for five years or more.
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx on behalf of TSG
Sent: Tue 2/17/2009 5:42 PM
To: John Levine
Cc: ietf@xxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Previous consensus on not changing patent policy (Re: Referencesto Redphone's "patent")
John Levine wrote:
>> But are the 1,000 or so emails in recent days from the FSF campaign
>> not a loud enough hum to recognize that our IPR policy is out of
>> tune?
>>
>
> Are you really saying that all it takes is a mob motivated by an
> misleading screed to make the IETF change direction?
>
Yes - exactly that.
> >From the sample of the FSF letters I read, many of the people writing
> didn't know the difference between Redphone and Red Hat, and if as
> many as two of them had even looked at the draft or IPR disclosure in
> question, it'd be a lot.
>
> The FSF's absolutist position on patents was set in stone 20 years
> ago. I don't see why we should be impressed if they occasionally
> throw a handful of pebbles at us.
>
> R's,
> John
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@xxxxxxxx
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>
>
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf