--On Thursday, 21 October, 2004 22:16 +0200 Brian E Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I'm with ESR on this one. The W3C bit the bullet and built a >> patent/IPR policy that has integrity and is based on the >> notion that the Net works properly when important components >> can be built by un-funded independents without worrying >> about getting their asses sued by someone with a patent >> portfolio. If the IETF wants to ignore history and build an >> Internet where that doesn't hold, feel free, but it's not a >> very interesting kind of place. -Tim > > Patent holders who choose to stay outside the standards setting > process are not in the least impressed by the IPR policy of the > standards body, whether it is the W3C, the IETF, or anywhere > else. > Those are the patent holders you need to worry about, not the > ones > who play nice by helping to set open standards. You're > shooting at > the wrong target by shooting at the IETF and its participants. Brian, While I've been trying to avoid this discussion, since it seems to be one of "repeat the same thing over and over again in the hope that people will eventually believe you... or it will become true", I think your observation above calls for two additional observations (which have probably also been made before). I also know you know all of this, but it seems to need saying again. (1) Unlike consortia whose mission tend to be either "make things better for the members while improving things overall" or "improve things overall while making things better for the members", the IETF's purpose is, to paraphrase recent discussions, to make the Internet work better by defining and promoting interoperability. However often they may intersect, those are different goals. To take the oft-cited W3C as an example, its mission is to "develop[s] interoperable technologies (specifications, guidelines, software, and tools) to lead the Web to its full potential. W3C is a forum for information, commerce, communication, and collective understanding." That "full potential" part isn't an IETF objective, nor, normally, are "information, commerce, and communication". Their realizing those goals may well justify the membership saying "if the open source folks, however defined, can't implement this, then we don't care about it". The IETF, by contrast, needs to be open even to the most encumbered of approaches if it is clear that they are technically so far superior that the market will adopt them no matter what we do. And we need to understand them to the extent possible to make a judgment about whether or not they are that superior. I believe need we need to go to great lengths to avoid requiring an overly-encumbered technology. But, if we cannot find an alternative, we can't. And if we conclude that an encumbered technology is acceptable as an alternative or additional option in a standard, I think that is --as it always has been-- a judgment that WGs and the IESG need to be able to make. (2) If one accepts even a fraction of my comments above, then it is in our interest, and the Internet's interest, to make the IETF tent spread as widely as possible. Our message to patent-holders should be "please participate here and see if things can be worked out to mutual benefit" not "you are evil and we don't want you here unless you mend your ways". We should try to be as inclusive as possible of those who are inclined to "play outside the standards game" so as to make them people we can have discussions with, people and organizations who might see the advantages of interoperability, and not "targets". john _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf