> > >One suggestion, now a specific topic on this list if you care to respond > >directly, is for the creation of an IETF IPR Advisory Board to help people > >everywhere--including thousands of disaffected FSF campaigners--to > >understand why certain patents (including the Redphone "patent") are not > >worth worrying about.
> - If there are "thousands of disaffected FSF campaigners", this should be the > FSF IPR Advisory Board. You have yet to explain why the aggrieved party is > not willing to do the work to make themselves happy. There is the germ of a good idea here. History has shown that the FSF is very concerned with how the IETF standardisation process deals with patent issues. This is a reasonable concern given the FSF's raison d'etre. Therefore, why not proactively consult the FSF on any standards track document that makes use of patented material? Proactively drive the dialogue by getting the FSF involved at an early stage, and by providing a separate mailing list (ietf-comments) for discussing the IPR issues. Over time, the FSF folks will better understand how the IETF deals with IPR and will see that there is rarely the possibility of a serious problem. Some of the time, an issue won't be resolvable in a brief email discussion and in that case the IETF should ask the FSF to collect their thoughts and write an Internet draft that explains why the proposed plan of action is bad, and why the IETF should take some other plan of action. That draft can then go to the WG and get resolved before a new protocol ever reaches RFC status. If we do this, then there are unlikely to be flurries of activity during last-call. In addition, more dialogue with FSF members should prove to be useful in resolving some of the open questions about IPR, copyrights, licencing and so on. --Michael Dillon _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
