At 3:15 PM -0400 7/20/09, Dean Anderson wrote: >I am against this standard because of its patent encumbrances and >non-free licencing terms. In the past, I think that Dean Anderson has stated that he is not a lawyer (although I can't find the specific reference). Note that the statement above is legal advice: he is saying that a particular protocol is encumbered. Readers of this thread may or may not want to listen to his legal advice. > The working group did not get any clear >answers on what particular patents this draft may infringe, but a patent >holder (Certicom) did assert an IPR disclosure (1004) listing many >patents. That statement did not say "we have a patent that encumbers the specific documents in question". > We have no alternative but to accept the Certicom disclosure >statements as meaning that the TLS Extractor draft is patent-encumbered >without a universal, free defensive license. Who is "we"? Dean Anderson is not a leader in the IETF, nor of the TLS protocol or developer community. "We" have plenty of alternatives, for almost any value of "we" that make sense here. --Paul Hoffman, Director --VPN Consortium _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf