Re: Shuffle those deck chairs!
>Between us (and especially if we agree), I believe we can speak *with >regard to this question* for 95% of the open-source community. This >does not make either of us power-mad dictators intent on domination, >just most peoples' recognized experts on what constitutes an >acceptable open-source license. Just for the record, I don't think you and RMS are power-mad dictators. But ... I'm not sure you represent nearly as many people as you think you do. Here's my problem: I personally know a lot of people who don't agree with you and RMS when it comes to open-source licensing. That's fine, IMHO ... everyone's entitled to their opinion. But out of the people that I know who have an interest in it, a _very large_ majority disagree with you and RMS, and would be very indignant if you or RMS claimed to be speaking for them (FWIW, I don't agree with you and RMS either, but it doesn't bother me enough to make a huge deal out of it). So I have an issue with your 95% figure. Now, there are some obvious problems with my "sampling". I'm not hugely active in the open-source community; you and RMS are, so it's very likely y'all have a better idea what the "pulse" is of the open-source developers. Also, any such sampling I do has the self-selection problem ... I probably hang out with people who think like I do more than I hang out with people who don't think like I do, so obviously I know plenty of people who think like me when it comes to open-source licensing. But ... I think the self-selection problem applies equally to you and RMS. In addition to the self-selection problem, I can't really see any way you could accurately determine how many people agree with you out of the open-source community. In a previous email, you talked about some SourceForge poll ... I'm a SourceForge user myself, and I've never participated in such a poll (and I don't think that even if I did, it would truely be represenative of the "open source community" ... I'm not sure we could even agree on who is an open source developer. Sure _you_ could tell me who think is an open-source developer, but again, I'm not sure everyone would agree with you). So, in summary, I guess my point can be summed up as follows: - Have you and RMS thought a lot about open source licensing? Absolutely. - Should your opinions on IPR claims be considered by the IETF? Absolutely. - Do you speak for 95% of open source developers on this question? I believe not. - Do you speak for a majority of open source developers on this question? Probably. But I can't back up the last two statements with any facts; I'm just going with my gut on this one. --Ken ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Shuffle those deck chairs!
Eric - > I said this: if IETF wants to know what form of patent license will be > acceptable to the open-source community, the people to ask are Richard > Stallman (representing FSF) and myself (representing OSI). > > Between us (and especially if we agree), I believe we can speak *with > regard to this question* for 95% of the open-source community. This > does not make either of us power-mad dictators intent on domination, > just most peoples' recognized experts on what constitutes an > acceptable open-source license. > > If either Mr. Schryer or yourself chooses not to be considered part > of that "most people", fine -- the fact remains there are an awful damn lot > of developers expecting RMS and myself to *do* *this* *job* so they don't > have to. That works fine for the membership of your organization. It is great they have entrusted this job to you. Congratulations. You may be missing a fundamental thing, however. The IETF has *no members* and, despite an impressive org chart and lots of titles, *participants* in the process tend to bristle when anybody presumes to speak on behalf of *the IETF.* We deliverately have a long, slow process based on group consensus and working code. By working code I mean every idea gets implemented so we can see how they work. That's the ideal anyway. > > Cripes. It'd be easier trying to serve a gang of baboons, sometimes... Well, yes, perhaps we are a gang of baboons. You've got a church model of open source with you as pope. That's fine. People are free to worship anyway they'd like. But, why don't you head over to the bazaar and see how the rest of us live? Your baboon analogy is sort of on the mark, however (see [1]). It might not look like we know what we're doing, but if we all keep on typing, maybe somebody will get lucky. Perhaps not as well structured as you'd like, but the results speak for themselves. So, if you don't like the IPR policy, all you can really do is type up an internet-draft with your ideas. Maybe you'll get lucky. But, you're not going to get very far sending yourself or any other church officials in to negotiate with a bunch of baboons. To us, you're just another monkey. Carl 1: http://infinite.simians.net/ ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Shuffle those deck chairs!
On Tue, 19 Oct 2004, Dean Anderson wrote: > On Mon, 18 Oct 2004, Michael Richardson wrote: > > > >> Obviously, there is a problem if a patent claims to invent > > >> something commonplace such as 'xml', and grants its use only for > > >> the purpose of IETF standards or a specific standard. But I'm > > >> not sure if I recall something like that. > > This is a question of licensing and particularly the wording and > limitations imposed by the license. Hypothetically, it could go either > way. You would only be permitted to do what the license permits. If the > license specifically only permits use of the technology for SIP, then you > can't use the patented technology for something else, because "something > else" is not permitted, assuming the language of the license was very > restrictive. The trick is the specification of the permissions in the > license. The answer depends on the license wording. Sometimes even > restrictive licenses leave loopholes. Sometimes not. That's why we have > lawyers. Yes, lawyers who generally get rich doing little more than arguing. > > --Dean > > > -- > Av8 Internet Prepared to pay a premium for better service? > www.av8.net faster, more reliable, better service > 617 344 9000 > > > > ___ > Ietf mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > sleekfreak pirate broadcast http://sleekfreak.ath.cx:81/ ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Shuffle those deck chairs!
On Oct 19, 2004, at 10:49 PM, Paul Vixie wrote: i think that the ensuing ietf-isoc-malamud hairball should pay for IPR searches of all final-drafts In my experience, such searches, to be of any use, require the services of an intelligent (i.e. expensive) person, ideally with domain expertise, are quite time-consuming, and produce lots of false negatives. Also, an attorney should be consulted about the possible legal consequences; there are scenarios where one is better off not knowing of the existence of a patent whose owner might think you're infringing. Having said that, if the org can afford the money and the process can afford the time and the legal risk is acceptable, this would be an excellent thing to do. -Tim smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Internet-Draft cutoffs and getting work done
On 20 Oct 2004, at 09:45, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: --On onsdag, oktober 20, 2004 09:31:06 +0100 Colin Perkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: that was what the procedure used to be - and someone had to keep track of the pile of I-D submissions for which there was no response (yet) from the WG chair. That extra load is what the secretariat has been trying to avoid during the rush. Can't we just require the working group chairs to send approvals before the submission deadline? Much of the problem before was that there was no definite cut-off date for approvals. when was "before"? there's been definite cut-off dates for approvals for at least 3 years (see the deadline announcement messages). (I think the secretariat has accepted some late approvals, though...) Checking back, I see you're right about the approval deadlines, although if I remember correctly the deadlines were a lot less firm in the past. The main issue, though, is that having the approval deadline a week before the submission deadline causes problems, as John enumerated in his "rant". In an ideal world, authors would know the drafts they were planning to submit in plenty of time, and they'd tell the working group chairs so approval can be given. In practice, and despite several reminders sent to the working group lists, I've seen several cases where the early approval deadline caused drafts to be rejected. That doesn't help the IETF process. Colin ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Internet-Draft cutoffs and getting work done
On 19 Oct 2004, at 06:13, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: --On 18. oktober 2004 12:43 -0400 Michael Richardson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I wonder if it wouldn't just be simpler to have the WG chair submit the -00 document themselves, I've discussed this option with the secretariat, and they think this (having the WG chair submit or forward the document on behalf of the author was the thing suggested) is a very reasonable thing to do - for the spring IETF meeting. Provided the criteria the secretariat use to check drafts for acceptability are clearly published, so chairs can check that drafts meet those criteria before accepting them for submission (and by this I mean something explicit like "run idnits v1.44 with no nits found and submit by , and we'll guarantee to post the draft"). As a chair, I don't want to be caught in the middle of an argument between an author and the secretariat about what constitutes correct boilerplate. Colin ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Internet-Draft cutoffs and getting work done
--On onsdag, oktober 20, 2004 09:31:06 +0100 Colin Perkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: that was what the procedure used to be - and someone had to keep track of the pile of I-D submissions for which there was no response (yet) from the WG chair. That extra load is what the secretariat has been trying to avoid during the rush. Can't we just require the working group chairs to send approvals before the submission deadline? Much of the problem before was that there was no definite cut-off date for approvals. when was "before"? there's been definite cut-off dates for approvals for at least 3 years (see the deadline announcement messages). (I think the secretariat has accepted some late approvals, though...) ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Internet-Draft cutoffs and getting work done
On 20 Oct 2004, at 06:13, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: --On tirsdag, oktober 19, 2004 18:39:49 -0700 Vijay Devarapalli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: this sometimes doesnt work. for example, I submitted a 00 version working group draft on Oct 18 draft at 2 am (PST). I dont think the WG chair could have stayed up that late to send out the draft for me before the submissin deadline (6 am PST). :) I prefer just cc'ing the WG chairs when I submit the draft, and the WG chairs, as soon as possible, sending a mail confirming that the document should be processed as a working group document. can you ask the secretariat if they are okay with this? :) that was what the procedure used to be - and someone had to keep track of the pile of I-D submissions for which there was no response (yet) from the WG chair. That extra load is what the secretariat has been trying to avoid during the rush. Can't we just require the working group chairs to send approvals before the submission deadline? Much of the problem before was that there was no definite cut-off date for approvals. Colin ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Shuffle those deck chairs!
somebody asked me... > What is your position on these issues then? i think that anyone who comments on the mailing list, or in WG meeting minutes, or as a draft author, should have to disclose any relevant IPR of which they are then aware or of which they become subsequently aware, whether or not such awareness is due to prospective benefit by them, or their employers, or their heirs or assigns. i also think contributors to ietf specifications, whether verbally, or in e-mail forums, or as authors, should have to quit-claim any relevant IPR except that which they have disclosed in advance of a draft being submitted to the RFC editor. i think that the ensuing ietf-isoc-malamud hairball should pay for IPR searches of all final-drafts before they reach the RFC editor, to get some kind of reasonable belief that all relevant IPR has in fact been disclosed, even though no warranties as to IPR should be expressed or implied. if working groups want a standard to use protected IPR, their only responsibility is to ensure that all IPR claims are properly disclosed. if implementors want to build products on a standard that uses protected IPR, they should be able to read the IPR legend in the RFC and make an informed business decision as to whether they like what they see. ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Shuffle those deck chairs!
Paul Vixie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >mr. raymond's claims of representation don't > help me and might, by creating misunderstanding amongst the consumers of > "open source" software, hurt me. Let's put an end to these far-reaching interpretations of "representation", which are a product of Mr. Schryer's fevered brain overinterpreting my original statement. Originally, somebody asked that the open-source community get its act together about what acceptable patent-license terms would be. I said this: if IETF wants to know what form of patent license will be acceptable to the open-source community, the people to ask are Richard Stallman (representing FSF) and myself (representing OSI). Between us (and especially if we agree), I believe we can speak *with regard to this question* for 95% of the open-source community. This does not make either of us power-mad dictators intent on domination, just most peoples' recognized experts on what constitutes an acceptable open-source license. If either Mr. Schryer or yourself chooses not to be considered part of that "most people", fine -- the fact remains there are an awful damn lot of developers expecting RMS and myself to *do* *this* *job* so they don't have to. Cripes. It'd be easier trying to serve a gang of baboons, sometimes... -- http://www.catb.org/~esr/";>Eric S. Raymond ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Internet-Draft cutoffs and getting work done
John, --On mandag, oktober 18, 2004 09:02:00 -0400 John C Klensin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Over the last few IETF meetings, processing has become more automated, or the Secretariat has become more efficient in other ways. The typical time to get an I-D posted other than in the pre- and post-meeting rush has dropped to one working day and has sometimes even been less. And, during the rush, the queue has often cleared early enough that consideration of shortening the deadlines/ lead time would be in order. Instead, a new rule has apparently crept into the posting deadlines, with no community discussion or announcement other than in those deadline announcements. The rule, in this meeting's form, is that "As always, all initial submissions (-00) with a filename beginning with "draft-ietf" must be approved by the appropriate WG Chair before they can be processed or announced. WG Chair approval must be received by Monday, October 11 at 9:00 AM ET." as far as I can tell, this offset (different dates for -00 draft submission and WG chair approval) was first introduced into the I-D deadline announcement for the Vienna IETF meeting - summer 2003: NOTE: There are two (2) Internet-Draft Cutoff dates June 23rd: Cutoff for Initial Submissions (new documents) All initial submissions(-00) must be submitted by Monday, June 23rd, at 09:00 ET. Initial submissions received after this time will NOT be made available in the Internet-Drafts directory, and will have to be resubmitted. As before, all initial submissions (-00.txt) with a filename beginning with a draft-ietf MUST be approved by the appropriate WG Chair prior to processing and announcing. WG Chair approval must be received by Monday, June 16th. At the time of Salt Lake City (Nov 2001), which is the earliest announcement I have a copy of, the date for WG chair approval was 3 days after the deadline; when the deadline for submission was moved from Friday to Monday, the WG chair approval deadline did not move. I'm still trying to figure out exactly what discussion happened ahead of the 2003 change, and how the WG chairs were informed. Harald ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Shuffle those deck chairs!
I'll try to refrain from further replies, as the sergeant-at-arms already declared this a bit out of scope.. On Mon, 18 Oct 2004, Michael Richardson wrote: > Eric> What happens when I want to re-use (say) a hash function from > Eric> a library with patent coverage and an area-of-application rule > Eric> on the patent license? -- > To add more meat to the example. > > Assume that the service library is in fact for HTTP, and it the patent > related to use of MD5 in basic-authentication. > > Assume that Eric now wishes to *reuse* this library to implement > something similar as SIP. There would seem to be two ways to tackle this kind of issue properly: 1) create a separate spec about MD5 in basic-authentication, and make it standards track. Then it could be reused in every context if free use is granted for standards compliance, or 2) have the service library export only such interfaces that reusing them would not be possible without code modifications and seeing the licensing warning. -- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oykingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Internet-Draft cutoffs and getting work done
--On tirsdag, oktober 19, 2004 18:39:49 -0700 Vijay Devarapalli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: hi Harald, this sometimes doesnt work. for example, I submitted a 00 version working group draft on Oct 18 draft at 2 am (PST). I dont think the WG chair could have stayed up that late to send out the draft for me before the submissin deadline (6 am PST). :) I prefer just cc'ing the WG chairs when I submit the draft, and the WG chairs, as soon as possible, sending a mail confirming that the document should be processed as a working group document. can you ask the secretariat if they are okay with this? :) that was what the procedure used to be - and someone had to keep track of the pile of I-D submissions for which there was no response (yet) from the WG chair. That extra load is what the secretariat has been trying to avoid during the rush. Vijay Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: --On 18. oktober 2004 12:43 -0400 Michael Richardson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I wonder if it wouldn't just be simpler to have the WG chair submit the -00 document themselves, I've discussed this option with the secretariat, and they think this (having the WG chair submit or forward the document on behalf of the author was the thing suggested) is a very reasonable thing to do - for the spring IETF meeting. (didn't get it on the table long enough before this meeting to change). No opinion yet on the cutoff dates - still reading. ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Internet-Draft cutoffs and getting work done
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> "Vijay" == Vijay Devarapalli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Vijay> this sometimes doesnt work. for example, I submitted a 00
Vijay> version working group draft on Oct 18 draft at 2 am (PST). I
Vijay> dont think the WG chair could have stayed up that late to
Vijay> send out the draft for me before the submissin deadline (6 am
Vijay> PST). :)
The idea is that the WG chair knows that the document is coming,
and is permitting to send in a placeholder in advance of the
deadline.
Whether or not this causes a loophole in the -00 "no placeholder"
rule, or whether or not we perhaps WANT this to be an official loophole,
I don't know.
- --
] "Elmo went to the wrong fundraiser" - The Simpson | firewalls [
] Michael Richardson,Xelerance Corporation, Ottawa, ON|net architect[
] [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/mcr/ |device driver[
] panic("Just another Debian GNU/Linux using, kernel hacking, security guy"); [
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Finger me for keys
iQCVAwUBQXXaJIqHRg3pndX9AQHfagP/TH8NdMRvA5KR2FOE/8VWRRLYGh0YGCzG
igCIBZgHfAZqi9B6NNll7tdII4wlGPGmG7qmeCEWznqAQ9IVhMsFMFd6KGW/TTPk
VAu0CF7CSiY7aJ3QcTw1Wuv6PSPj4jD+Hg3DvOTqV6vRpGdQ2wkmUDr06w9rttJW
HxCQSMswhKo=
=jqFL
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
