Harald Alvestrand writing about decisions made on March 16-22 2003: > > 1. do you wish this group to recharter to cdhange the IETF's IPR policy > > hum for (some) > > hom anti (more) > > fairly clear consensus against rechartering. anyone disagree?
Hi Harald, Let's forget the past; I acknowledge we lost that argument then among those few who bothered to hum. 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? This is not the first such open source campaign either. IETF needs a more sturdy process to deal with IPR issues. Please consider the suggestions now on the table. Best regards, /Larry Lawrence Rosen Rosenlaw & Einschlag, a technology law firm (www.rosenlaw.com) 3001 King Ranch Road, Ukiah, CA 95482 707-485-1242 * cell: 707-478-8932 * fax: 707-485-1243 Skype: LawrenceRosen > -----Original Message----- > From: Harald Alvestrand [mailto:har...@alvestrand.no] > Sent: Monday, February 16, 2009 5:10 AM > To: lro...@rosenlaw.com > Cc: ietf@ietf.org > Subject: Previous consensus on not changing patent policy (Re: References > to Redphone's "patent") > > Lawrence Rosen wrote: > > Chuck Powers wrote: > > > >> +1 > >> > >> That is a legal quagmire that the IETF (like all good standards > >> development groups) must avoid. > >> > > > > Chuck is not alone in saying that, as you have just seen. > > > > These are the very people who refused to add "patent policy" to the > charter > > of the previous IPR WG, and who controlled "consensus" on that point > last > > time. > To be precise: "Last time" was at the San Francisco IETF meeting, March > 16-22 2003, and I was the one "controlling consensus". > > The minutes (at http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/03mar/132.htm ) show > this conclusion, after much discussion: > > > 1. do you wish this group to recharter to cdhange the IETF's IPR policy > > hum for (some) > > hom anti (more) > > fairly clear consensus against rechartering. anyone disagree? > > > > harald: will verified on mailing list, will lead to some debate. if > > consensus is reached against rechartering... the IETF will not consider > > proposals to create or reactivate IPR wg before people with > > compelling arg to do so. those should be different than what > > prevented so far. > > > Despite the abysmal spelling quality, it was pretty clear at the time > that the arguments presented were not compelling. I haven't seen > significant new arguments in the meantime; that doesn't mean they don't > exist, just that I haven't seen them. > > Harald _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
