Re: Weekly posting summary for ietf@ietf.org
On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 00:53:02 -0400, Thomas Narten wrote: > Total of 122 messages in the last 7 days. > > script run at: Fri Oct 26 00:53:02 EDT 2007 > > Messages | Bytes| Who > +--++--+ > 9.02% | 11 | 14.62% | 117248 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 10.66% | 13 | 9.64% |77309 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 7.38% |9 | 8.84% |70914 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 8.20% | 10 | 7.42% |59555 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 6.56% |8 | 5.77% |46263 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 5.74% |7 | 5.73% |45958 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 4.92% |6 | 4.30% |34502 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 4.92% |6 | 3.80% |30450 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 4.10% |5 | 3.67% |29459 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 4.10% |5 | 2.96% |23717 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 3.28% |4 | 2.17% |17418 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 0.82% |1 | 4.41% |35394 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 2.46% |3 | 2.35% |18813 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 2.46% |3 | 1.89% |15197 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 1.64% |2 | 1.69% |13538 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 1.64% |2 | 1.66% |13280 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 1.64% |2 | 1.60% |12803 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 1.64% |2 | 1.49% |11989 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 1.64% |2 | 1.39% |11167 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 1.64% |2 | 1.31% |10499 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 1.64% |2 | 1.22% | 9795 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 0.82% |1 | 1.15% | 9264 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 0.82% |1 | 1.11% | 8904 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 0.82% |1 | 1.06% | 8513 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 0.82% |1 | 0.79% | 6350 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 0.82% |1 | 0.78% | 6278 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 0.82% |1 | 0.78% | 6261 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 0.82% |1 | 0.68% | 5463 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 0.82% |1 | 0.67% | 5351 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 0.82% |1 | 0.66% | 5314 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 0.82% |1 | 0.64% | 5156 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 0.82% |1 | 0.59% | 4747 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 0.82% |1 | 0.56% | 4506 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 0.82% |1 | 0.54% | 4360 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 0.82% |1 | 0.54% | 4305 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 0.82% |1 | 0.51% | 4087 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 0.82% |1 | 0.51% | 4069 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 0.82% |1 | 0.49% | 3959 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] > +--++--+ > 100.00% | 122 |100.00% | 802155 | Total somebody has sent mail as html mass everytime. that's why pbaker@ is top lank by bytes order. -- "i love your daughter with all respect." -- Enzo ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Weekly posting summary for ietf@ietf.org
On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 00:53:02 -0400, Thomas Narten wrote: > Total of 122 messages in the last 7 days. > > script run at: Fri Oct 26 00:53:02 EDT 2007 > > Messages | Bytes| Who > +--++--+ > 9.02% | 11 | 14.62% | 117248 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 10.66% | 13 | 9.64% |77309 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 7.38% |9 | 8.84% |70914 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 8.20% | 10 | 7.42% |59555 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 6.56% |8 | 5.77% |46263 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 5.74% |7 | 5.73% |45958 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 4.92% |6 | 4.30% |34502 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 4.92% |6 | 3.80% |30450 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 4.10% |5 | 3.67% |29459 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 4.10% |5 | 2.96% |23717 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 3.28% |4 | 2.17% |17418 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 0.82% |1 | 4.41% |35394 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 2.46% |3 | 2.35% |18813 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 2.46% |3 | 1.89% |15197 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 1.64% |2 | 1.69% |13538 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 1.64% |2 | 1.66% |13280 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 1.64% |2 | 1.60% |12803 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 1.64% |2 | 1.49% |11989 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 1.64% |2 | 1.39% |11167 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 1.64% |2 | 1.31% |10499 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 1.64% |2 | 1.22% | 9795 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 0.82% |1 | 1.15% | 9264 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 0.82% |1 | 1.11% | 8904 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 0.82% |1 | 1.06% | 8513 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 0.82% |1 | 0.79% | 6350 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 0.82% |1 | 0.78% | 6278 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 0.82% |1 | 0.78% | 6261 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 0.82% |1 | 0.68% | 5463 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 0.82% |1 | 0.67% | 5351 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 0.82% |1 | 0.66% | 5314 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 0.82% |1 | 0.64% | 5156 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 0.82% |1 | 0.59% | 4747 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 0.82% |1 | 0.56% | 4506 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 0.82% |1 | 0.54% | 4360 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 0.82% |1 | 0.54% | 4305 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 0.82% |1 | 0.51% | 4087 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 0.82% |1 | 0.51% | 4069 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 0.82% |1 | 0.49% | 3959 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] > +--++--+ > 100.00% | 122 |100.00% | 802155 | Total somebody has sent mail as html mass everytime. that's why pbaker@ is top lank as bytes order. -- May The DKIM Be With You! ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Weekly posting summary for ietf@ietf.org
Total of 122 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Oct 26 00:53:02 EDT 2007 Messages | Bytes| Who +--++--+ 9.02% | 11 | 14.62% | 117248 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 10.66% | 13 | 9.64% |77309 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 7.38% |9 | 8.84% |70914 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 8.20% | 10 | 7.42% |59555 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 6.56% |8 | 5.77% |46263 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 5.74% |7 | 5.73% |45958 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 4.92% |6 | 4.30% |34502 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 4.92% |6 | 3.80% |30450 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 4.10% |5 | 3.67% |29459 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 4.10% |5 | 2.96% |23717 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 3.28% |4 | 2.17% |17418 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0.82% |1 | 4.41% |35394 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2.46% |3 | 2.35% |18813 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2.46% |3 | 1.89% |15197 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1.64% |2 | 1.69% |13538 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1.64% |2 | 1.66% |13280 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1.64% |2 | 1.60% |12803 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1.64% |2 | 1.49% |11989 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1.64% |2 | 1.39% |11167 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1.64% |2 | 1.31% |10499 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1.64% |2 | 1.22% | 9795 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0.82% |1 | 1.15% | 9264 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0.82% |1 | 1.11% | 8904 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0.82% |1 | 1.06% | 8513 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0.82% |1 | 0.79% | 6350 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0.82% |1 | 0.78% | 6278 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0.82% |1 | 0.78% | 6261 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0.82% |1 | 0.68% | 5463 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0.82% |1 | 0.67% | 5351 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0.82% |1 | 0.66% | 5314 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0.82% |1 | 0.64% | 5156 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0.82% |1 | 0.59% | 4747 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0.82% |1 | 0.56% | 4506 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0.82% |1 | 0.54% | 4360 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0.82% |1 | 0.54% | 4305 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0.82% |1 | 0.51% | 4087 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0.82% |1 | 0.51% | 4069 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0.82% |1 | 0.49% | 3959 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] +--++--+ 100.00% | 122 |100.00% | 802155 | Total ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: A priori IPR choices
On 2007-10-26 06:09, Norbert Bollow wrote: Theodore Tso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I don't disagree with anything that you wrote, but the point here is that if there's a patent with GPL-incompatible licensing, you don't have permission to link that BSD-licensed code into a GPL-licensed program and distribute the result. And I would argue that the above issue is not a matter of concern to the IETF. Having a reference implementation to encourage adoption of the spec, that is of IETF's concern. The issue of GPL requirements is, I would argue, Not Our Problem. Is it really your position that that is in no case a concern that IETF should consider??? For an extreme example, consider hypothetically the case that an essential part of the IPv6 protocol stack had such a patent issue. To be blunter than Ted, this is a problem that the GPL community has to solve, not the IETF. I don't mean the IETF shouldn't consider it as one factor among many when evaluating a technology choice, but the underlying issue is between the GPL and the patent regime. Our test has always been "has interoperability been demonstrated in the real world?" and that remains a pretty strong test. Brian ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: A priori IPR choices
On Thu, Oct 25, 2007 at 07:09:54PM +0200, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > And I would argue that the above issue is not a matter of concern to > > the IETF. Having a reference implementation to encourage adoption of > > the spec, that is of IETF's concern. The issue of GPL requirements > > is, I would argue, Not Our Problem. > > Is it really your position that that is in no case a concern that IETF > should consider??? > > For an extreme example, consider hypothetically the case that an > essential part of the IPv6 protocol stack had such a patent issue. I was thinking mainly about protocols used by application programs. I agree that something essential needed for IPv6, that might be something that an individual wg might want to consider. But in terms of a blanket policy that would apply to *ALL* IETF protocols? That would something that is really NOT an IETF-wide concern. - Ted ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: When is using patented technology appropriate?
Lawrence Rosen wrote: > Steven Bellovin wrote: > >> Right. Any IPR policy has to acknowledge the fact that relevant >> patents can be owned by non-troll non-participants. (Too many >> negatives there -- what I'm saying is that IETFers don't know of all >> patents in the space, and there are real patent owners who care about >> their patents, even though they aren't trolls.) >> > > I agree, but I suggest that our new IPR policy ought to set expectations for > how we deal procedurally with such outside encumbrances when discovered. The > defensive termination provision in most contributors' IETF patent grants can > also help to protect our specifications from trolls and some third-party > patent owners, depending upon how those grants are worded. > For several reasons, it is difficult to imagine an IETF-wide procedure that allows the existence of a patent to trump other considerations of protocol feasibility and deployability: - Many patents are believed to be invalid or indefensible. IETF as an organization cannot get in a position of deciding whether a patent is valid or defensible, both because it doesn't really have the resources or in-house expertise to do this, and because the only way to know for sure is to go through a lengthy court process, perhaps in several different countries. And yet, if there is a consensus among those who are invested in the technology that a particular patent isn't going to present an actual obstacle to deployment, it makes sense to let it go forward. The alternative - letting a dubious patent block or significantly delay approval of an IETF standard - gives dubious patents much more power than they deserve. - A similar argument can be made for patents that are valid and defensible, but for which the applicability to a given protocol is dubious. - There have been cases in the past where apparently valid and applicable patents, existed but would expire soon. Some of our standards appear have a useful lifetime of many decades. From that point of view, a patent that has been in force for a few years might be a short-term concern. Whether this is the case depends on many factors, including the remaining lifetime of the patent and the nature of the protocol under discussion. An IETF-wide policy doesn't seem to make sense here, especially if the effect of that policy were to delay work on a protocol that probably wouldn't be ready for deployment until the patent had expired, or nearly so, anyway. - There are cases for which a patent with an RAND license presents an insignificant barrier to deployment, because a substantial monetary investment would be required in any event to implement a protocol. For instance, a protocol that inherently requires expensive hardware to implement, but for which the license fee is a small portion of that required to pay for the hardware. Again, this is something that needs to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. - Just because it appears at first that a protocol might be impaired by the existence of a patent, doesn't mean that a workaround won't be found as the protocol is developed. This has happened many times. Also, patent holders have been known to make licenses available under more attractive terms precisely because the technology was being considered for an IETF standard. That kind of pressure/encouragement might well be more effective at making useful technology available to the Internet community than a blanket patent policy. Speaking as someone who has been involved in IETF for about 17 years now, by far the best way to ensure that IETF protocols to be safe for open source implementors is for open source implementors to participate in IETF working groups. IETF's policy of rough consensus means that every interested party has a strong voice when it comes to objecting to things that will hamper implementation or deployment. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Offer of time on the IPR WG agenda for rechartering
Lawrence Rosen skrev: > Harald, > > I am unable to be in Vancouver for the meeting, but I hope that someone else > there will support the re-charter of the IPR WG as I suggested in my earlier > email: > > *** > > I request that we charter the IETF IPR-WG to propose policies and > procedures, consistent with the worldwide mission of IETF, which will result > in IETF specifications unencumbered by restrictive, non-free patents. > > *** > Thanks for the comment. I look forward to seeing your I-D, and hope you will find someone to present it in Vancouver. > I also hope that a decision on this will not be based simply on who attends > in Vancouver, but on a wider representative vote of IETF participants. > Since we don't vote, it won't be decided by a vote. I don't rule out opinion polls... ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Offer of time on the IPR WG agenda for rechartering
Ted Hardie skrev: >> I'd like the people who want time on the agenda to supply a text (preferably >> published as an I-D), which summarizes, as clearly as possible: >> >> - What they think has changed since the last IPR WG evaluation of patent >> policy >> >> - What changes in overall direction they think the WG should address >> >> - What the charter for this activity should look like >> >> If more than one such proposal should appear, I'd suggest giving each >> submitter a 5-10 minute slot for making their argument, and leaving at least >> half an hour for general discussion. >> >> Please submit I-Ds with the name pattern of >> draft--ipr-patent- - that would make it easy for us to >> find them all. >> >> The timeslot for the WG is Tuesday morning from 0900 to 1130; the >> rechartering discussion would be within the time from 1030 to 1130. >> > > Just to be clear, if someone has the view that documents like Simon's > how-to should be within the charter of the working group, but that there > are no changes needed to the base policy, do you still want an I-D? Or > is a rationale submitted as a short statement enough? > In the case of Simon's I-D, there is already an existing I-D, which (if I remember rightly - it's been a long time since I've read it) explains its rationale fairly well. So a simple request to have that placed on the agenda, with a brief statement of what the desired outcome is, should be enough. Harald ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Offer of time on the IPR WG agenda for rechartering
>I'd like the people who want time on the agenda to supply a text (preferably >published as an I-D), which summarizes, as clearly as possible: > >- What they think has changed since the last IPR WG evaluation of patent policy > >- What changes in overall direction they think the WG should address > >- What the charter for this activity should look like > >If more than one such proposal should appear, I'd suggest giving each >submitter a 5-10 minute slot for making their argument, and leaving at least >half an hour for general discussion. > >Please submit I-Ds with the name pattern of >draft--ipr-patent- - that would make it easy for us to >find them all. > >The timeslot for the WG is Tuesday morning from 0900 to 1130; the rechartering >discussion would be within the time from 1030 to 1130. Just to be clear, if someone has the view that documents like Simon's how-to should be within the charter of the working group, but that there are no changes needed to the base policy, do you still want an I-D? Or is a rationale submitted as a short statement enough? Ted ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: A priori IPR choices
On Thu, 25 Oct 2007, Norbert Bollow wrote: > For an extreme example, consider hypothetically the case that an > essential part of the IPv6 protocol stack had such a patent issue. Well, by the time the world is ready for IPv6 I expect that patent would have expired ;-:) ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IETF 70 - meeting conflict - any way to juggle schedule to accommodate?
Yes, this is unfortunate. I'll see what the secretary can do. Jari Brian Dickson kirjoitti: > There is a scheduling conflict between two WG meetings, at IETF-70 in > Vancouver. > > I consider them to both be very important, as both concern the > essential elements of short and long term development of technologies > for the Internet itself - IPv6 and Routing Research. > > The actual WG designations are: > rrg (routing research group) > and > 6man (IPv6 maintenance WG) > > Both are currently scheduled for Wednesday Morning (I). > > If at all possible, can one of these be moved to *any* other slot? > (I'm hoping to present at the 6man meeting, and desperately want to > attend the RRG meeting as well.) > > Thanks, > > Brian Dickson > > ___ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > > ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: A priori IPR choices
Theodore Tso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I don't disagree with anything that you wrote, but the point here > > is that if there's a patent with GPL-incompatible licensing, you > > don't have permission to link that BSD-licensed code into a > > GPL-licensed program and distribute the result. > > And I would argue that the above issue is not a matter of concern to > the IETF. Having a reference implementation to encourage adoption of > the spec, that is of IETF's concern. The issue of GPL requirements > is, I would argue, Not Our Problem. Is it really your position that that is in no case a concern that IETF should consider??? For an extreme example, consider hypothetically the case that an essential part of the IPv6 protocol stack had such a patent issue. Greetings, Norbert. -- Norbert Bollow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://Norbert.ch President of the Swiss Internet User Group SIUGhttp://SIUG.ch Working on establishing a non-corrupt and truly /open/ international standards organization http://OpenISO.org ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
IETF 70 - meeting conflict - any way to juggle schedule to accommodate?
There is a scheduling conflict between two WG meetings, at IETF-70 in Vancouver. I consider them to both be very important, as both concern the essential elements of short and long term development of technologies for the Internet itself - IPv6 and Routing Research. The actual WG designations are: rrg (routing research group) and 6man (IPv6 maintenance WG) Both are currently scheduled for Wednesday Morning (I). If at all possible, can one of these be moved to *any* other slot? (I'm hoping to present at the 6man meeting, and desperately want to attend the RRG meeting as well.) Thanks, Brian Dickson ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: A priori IPR choices
On Thu, Oct 25, 2007 at 06:00:42PM +0200, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > I would argue that a GPL implemention is not important to > > interoperability testing as long as there is a BSD-licensed > > implementation. In fact, to the extent that all or most of the > > commercial products are based off of the same BSD-licensed code base, > > this can actually *improve* interoperability. (I may have been > > awarded the 2006 FSF Award for the Advancement of Free Software, but > > if my goal were to make sure that specification was going to get > > widely adopted, I'd use a BSD license, not a GPl license, for the > > reference implementation.) > > I don't disagree with anything that you wrote, but the point here > is that if there's a patent with GPL-incompatible licensing, you > don't have permission to link that BSD-licensed code into a > GPL-licensed program and distribute the result. And I would argue that the above issue is not a matter of concern to the IETF. Having a reference implementation to encourage adoption of the spec, that is of IETF's concern. The issue of GPL requirements is, I would argue, Not Our Problem. - Ted ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: A priori IPR choices
At 11:04 AM +0200 10/25/07, Simon Josefsson wrote: >Ted Hardie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >>>No. My point was that for the IETF, interoperability is the goal, not some >>>general statement about goodness of Free software. In many/most/maybe all >>>cases, this will require any IPR restrictions to be GPL compatible. >> >> Can you think of an open-source project interested in the work of >> CCAMP? > >GNU Zebra, Quagga, and MPLS-linux are three projects that come up by >searching for relevant technology. I'm actually fairly familiar with Quagga, having used it in route-server mode, and it's mind understanding that it and Zebra don't really match the control plane uses of CCAMP. I'm not familiar with MPLS-linux, but I'll take a look at it; thanks for the pointer. >I think you are missing the point, though. The point is to make sure >that a free software implementation of IETF technology is _possible_. >That doesn't necessarily mean that you won't be able to find an IETF WG >with technical work that may not have been implemented already in free >software. The point I'm making, though, is that there really are different development communities working in the IETF. The GMPLS work in CCAMP is control plane work for wavelength, TDMA, and spatial switching networks. Though clearly important to keeping many networks running, it doesn't have the same reach of development interest as many of the other technologies in the IETF. If you were to compare it to the development communities involved in apps groups like CALSIFY or LEMONADE, you would find a very small overlap. Those development communities may well have different priorities in evaluating a license; some may find it problematic to include something that is royalty bearing or requires a reciprocal agreement and some may not. Privileging a development community which might someday arise and whose work might someday get deployment over the folks actually already spending time and effort on developing and deploying a standard is an odd position. Our aim is to make the Internet work, not to advance one kind of license over another. If the Internet will work better using a technology that requires a license incompatible with the GPL or even BSD licenses, then we should let the folks working in that area make that decision. In other words, this is about engineering trade-offs, not ideology. regards, Ted ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: A priori IPR choices
Theodore Tso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Oct 25, 2007 at 10:58:32AM +1300, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > > On 2007-10-25 08:32, Ted Hardie wrote: > >> At 10:02 AM -0700 10/24/07, Lawrence Rosen wrote: > >>> Ted Hardie wrote: > >>> And that will never fly (IANAL) with the GPL and so here we sit at an > >>> impasse again. So either a GPL implementation is important to > >>> interoperability in a given space or it is not. If it is important to > >>> interoperabilty, then this is a showstopper. If not, maybe not. > >> Hope that helps restore context for you. > > I would argue that a GPL implemention is not important to > interoperability testing as long as there is a BSD-licensed > implementation. In fact, to the extent that all or most of the > commercial products are based off of the same BSD-licensed code base, > this can actually *improve* interoperability. (I may have been > awarded the 2006 FSF Award for the Advancement of Free Software, but > if my goal were to make sure that specification was going to get > widely adopted, I'd use a BSD license, not a GPl license, for the > reference implementation.) I don't disagree with anything that you wrote, but the point here is that if there's a patent with GPL-incompatible licensing, you don't have permission to link that BSD-licensed code into a GPL-licensed program and distribute the result. Greetings, Norbert. -- Norbert Bollow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://Norbert.ch President of the Swiss Internet User Group SIUGhttp://SIUG.ch Working on establishing a non-corrupt and truly /open/ international standards organization http://OpenISO.org ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: A priori IPR choices
On Thursday 25 October 2007 11:33, Theodore Tso wrote: > On Thu, Oct 25, 2007 at 10:58:32AM +1300, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > > On 2007-10-25 08:32, Ted Hardie wrote: > >> At 10:02 AM -0700 10/24/07, Lawrence Rosen wrote: > >>> Ted Hardie wrote: > >>> And that will never fly (IANAL) with the GPL and so here we sit at an > >>> impasse again. So either a GPL implementation is important to > >>> interoperability in a given space or it is not. If it is important to > >>> interoperabilty, then this is a showstopper. If not, maybe not. > >> > >> Hope that helps restore context for you. > > I would argue that a GPL implemention is not important to > interoperability testing as long as there is a BSD-licensed > implementation. In fact, to the extent that all or most of the > commercial products are based off of the same BSD-licensed code base, > this can actually *improve* interoperability. (I may have been > awarded the 2006 FSF Award for the Advancement of Free Software, but > if my goal were to make sure that specification was going to get > widely adopted, I'd use a BSD license, not a GPl license, for the > reference implementation.) > > Of course there can be are problems when the reference implementation > doesn't quite jibe with the formal printed specification, but that is > true regardless how the reference implementation is licensed. > The context wasn't reference implementations, but deployment in the real world where interoperability among different implementations (some with GPL licensing) is desired. Scott K ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: A priori IPR choices
On Thu, Oct 25, 2007 at 10:58:32AM +1300, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > On 2007-10-25 08:32, Ted Hardie wrote: >> At 10:02 AM -0700 10/24/07, Lawrence Rosen wrote: >>> Ted Hardie wrote: >>> And that will never fly (IANAL) with the GPL and so here we sit at an >>> impasse again. So either a GPL implementation is important to >>> interoperability in a given space or it is not. If it is important to >>> interoperabilty, then this is a showstopper. If not, maybe not. >> Hope that helps restore context for you. I would argue that a GPL implemention is not important to interoperability testing as long as there is a BSD-licensed implementation. In fact, to the extent that all or most of the commercial products are based off of the same BSD-licensed code base, this can actually *improve* interoperability. (I may have been awarded the 2006 FSF Award for the Advancement of Free Software, but if my goal were to make sure that specification was going to get widely adopted, I'd use a BSD license, not a GPl license, for the reference implementation.) Of course there can be are problems when the reference implementation doesn't quite jibe with the formal printed specification, but that is true regardless how the reference implementation is licensed. - Ted ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Offer of time on the IPR WG agenda for rechartering
Harald, I am unable to be in Vancouver for the meeting, but I hope that someone else there will support the re-charter of the IPR WG as I suggested in my earlier email: *** I request that we charter the IETF IPR-WG to propose policies and procedures, consistent with the worldwide mission of IETF, which will result in IETF specifications unencumbered by restrictive, non-free patents. *** I also hope that a decision on this will not be based simply on who attends in Vancouver, but on a wider representative vote of IETF participants. /Larry Rosen > -Original Message- > From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2007 5:31 AM > To: ietf@ietf.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Offer of time on the IPR WG agenda for rechartering > > As it looks now, the IPR WG's meeting in Vancouver will not be extremely > contentious. > > So, while priority MUST be given to finishing the WG's current work > (copyrights), it seems reasonable to offer a time slot to proposals to > recharter the WG to deal with patent issues. > > I think we can offer at least some time for face-to-face discussion of the > issues - but in order to have a more focused discussion than a general > discussion on whether or not anything needs to be done, > > The outcomes I see possible of such a discussion are: > > - No changes are necessary. The IPR WG can shut down. > > - A change is necessary, and a specific proposal is deemed closest to what > the community wants. We can process a recharter request soon after the > IETF > meeting. > > - A change is necessary, but no consensus on what change exists. More > discussion is necessary. > > - No consensus can be reached on whether or not a change is necessary. > > I'd like the people who want time on the agenda to supply a text > (preferably published as an I-D), which summarizes, as clearly as > possible: > > - What they think has changed since the last IPR WG evaluation of patent > policy > > - What changes in overall direction they think the WG should address > > - What the charter for this activity should look like > > If more than one such proposal should appear, I'd suggest giving each > submitter a 5-10 minute slot for making their argument, and leaving at > least half an hour for general discussion. > > Please submit I-Ds with the name pattern of > draft--ipr-patent- - that would make it easy for us > to find them all. > > The timeslot for the WG is Tuesday morning from 0900 to 1130; the > rechartering discussion would be within the time from 1030 to 1130. > > Harald > > > ___ > Ipr-wg mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Last Call: draft-levin-mmusic-xml-media-control (XML Schema for Media Control) to Informational RFC
Hi Pete, After consulting with my co-authors our view is that industry implemented the solution as specified in the example, so we need to revise the schema based on Pete's suggestion to http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema"; elementFormDefault="qualified" id="TightMediaControl"> This also means that we will not have the target name space so we do not need to register it with IANA as specified in section 9.2. If this is correct I will submit a revised revsion. Thanks Roni Even > -Original Message- > From: Pete Cordell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, October 08, 2007 4:22 PM > To: ietf@ietf.org > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Even, Roni; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Last Call: draft-levin-mmusic-xml-media-control (XML Schema > for Media Control) to Informational RFC > > I quickly looked at this and noticed that the XML instance examples don't > match the schema because the instance does not make reference to the > namespace. i.e., to match the schema, the example should be: > > > > > > > > > > > > My expectation is that the instance is actually more authorative in terms > of > what the authors are looking for. If that is the case, the schema should > be > modified along the lines of: > > xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema";> > ... > > i.e. remove the targetNamespace declarations. > > You may have your reasons not to, but if not, you may want to consider > using > schema's documentation features instead of the XML comments; e.g.: > > > > Video control primitive. > > > > ... > > HTH, > > Pete. > -- > = > Pete Cordell > Codalogic > for XML Schema to C++ data binding visit > http://www.codalogic.com/lmx/ > = > - Original Message - > From: "The IESG" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "IETF-Announce" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Monday, October 08, 2007 2:29 PM > Subject: Last Call: draft-levin-mmusic-xml-media-control (XML Schema for > Media Control) to Informational RFC > > > > The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider > > the following document: > > > > - 'XML Schema for Media Control ' > >as an Informational RFC > > > > The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits > > final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the > > ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2007-11-05. Exceptionally, > > comments may be sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] instead. In either case, please > > retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. > > > > The file can be obtained via > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-levin-mmusic-xml-media- > control-11.txt > > > > > > IESG discussion can be tracked via > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=view_id&dTag=93 > 91&rfc_flag=0 > > > > > > ___ > > IETF-Announce mailing list > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce > > > ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Offer of time on the IPR WG agenda for rechartering
As it looks now, the IPR WG's meeting in Vancouver will not be extremely contentious. So, while priority MUST be given to finishing the WG's current work (copyrights), it seems reasonable to offer a time slot to proposals to recharter the WG to deal with patent issues. I think we can offer at least some time for face-to-face discussion of the issues - but in order to have a more focused discussion than a general discussion on whether or not anything needs to be done, The outcomes I see possible of such a discussion are: - No changes are necessary. The IPR WG can shut down. - A change is necessary, and a specific proposal is deemed closest to what the community wants. We can process a recharter request soon after the IETF meeting. - A change is necessary, but no consensus on what change exists. More discussion is necessary. - No consensus can be reached on whether or not a change is necessary. I'd like the people who want time on the agenda to supply a text (preferably published as an I-D), which summarizes, as clearly as possible: - What they think has changed since the last IPR WG evaluation of patent policy - What changes in overall direction they think the WG should address - What the charter for this activity should look like If more than one such proposal should appear, I'd suggest giving each submitter a 5-10 minute slot for making their argument, and leaving at least half an hour for general discussion. Please submit I-Ds with the name pattern of draft--ipr-patent- - that would make it easy for us to find them all. The timeslot for the WG is Tuesday morning from 0900 to 1130; the rechartering discussion would be within the time from 1030 to 1130. Harald ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: A priori IPR choices
Ted Hardie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>No. My point was that for the IETF, interoperability is the goal, not some >>general statement about goodness of Free software. In many/most/maybe all >>cases, this will require any IPR restrictions to be GPL compatible. > > Can you think of an open-source project interested in the work of > CCAMP? GNU Zebra, Quagga, and MPLS-linux are three projects that come up by searching for relevant technology. I think you are missing the point, though. The point is to make sure that a free software implementation of IETF technology is _possible_. That doesn't necessarily mean that you won't be able to find an IETF WG with technical work that may not have been implemented already in free software. /Simon ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
