On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 06:21:26PM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote: > I don't know the answer to that question, but I can follow you in > considering the consequences of a possible yes answer. > > However if the answer is yes, then the TLS implementation must not > export the TLS extractor to applications when doing so would cause the > applications to infringe. > > There is no technical way that the TLS implementation can tell whether > the application has a patent license. That could be changed from the > day to the next, by the actions of lawyers and businessmen, without > any change in the code of the application. > > So the question that would follow is, what good is a standard which > people are free to implement in a library, but cannot actually use > without asking permission? I agree. The question is: must each participant go pay a lawyer to answer that question? But suppose that we simply say that the very fact that this question is raised is enough to drop the standardization effort (e.g., because not every participant, in a volunteer organization like the IETF, can pay for a lawyer every time something like this comes up), are we not then making it trivial to DoS the standards process? The operative word here is uncertainty. A patent-holder creates uncertainty. How should an SDO respond? I'm not sure. I'm only sure that I don't like getting DoSed, either into dropping a standard or into not implementing it for fear of infringing. In this case Mr. Campana sent a clarification with a specific claim, but not disclaiming other potential claims. To me that's sufficient to proceed. But IANAL, and I don't represent my employer (as is the norm at the IETF). Nico -- _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf