On Thu, May 30, 2002 08:59:50AM -0700, Marshall Rose wrote: > > > My druthers would be to have an IETF policy explicitly saying > > > that the first choice is to use unencumbered technology if it > > > can be made to work, second choice is encumbered but > > > royalty-free technology, and last choice is "fair and reasonable > > > licence terms" (or whatever the equivalent correct legal wording > > > might be for that last). > > > > and if one solution is 120% better technically than another, but has > > a RAND license associated with it? What if it's 170% better? > > working groups make trade-offs all the time between simplicity, > functionality, and so on. licensing is another cost. given the amount > of traffic on this topic, it appears that licensing is a very heavy > cost. this may provide an answer to your question...
Given the content of the traffic on this topic, there is a range of opinions about how heavy a cost it is -- which is what I wanted to bring out. We can, if we like, declare that all standards must be unencumbered, but by doing so we'll just make the IETF less relevant. That ideal is left over from the days when everyone was working for the common good -- in some working groups it's wrong, and in others hard to apply. Right now there is no explicit guidance for working groups. Smart ones figure out creative solutions on their own. I'd like to see some prose added to the working group guidelines, not to lay out explicit rules, but to give groups a framework for making decisions about standards and intellectual property in the modern world. ..Scott
