This strikes me as oversimplistic. What if a commercial enterprise
wanted to license its IPR in such a way that it put no constraints on
open source, but retained constraints on commercial competitors? I'm
not sure you can get around a technical mandate for some kind of
license and still
There seem to be some misunderstanding here, free software is not
non-commercial. If someone wants to put restrictions of their ideas
on commercial competitors, that prevent the idea from being used in
free software as well. The rights associated with free software are
granted to commercial
On Fri, 15 Oct 2004, Nathaniel Borenstein wrote:
This strikes me as oversimplistic. What if a commercial enterprise
wanted to license its IPR in such a way that it put no constraints on
open source, but retained constraints on commercial competitors? I'm
not sure you can get around a
Hi Eric,
I am afraid that your choice below won't mesh very well with why
companies have software patents in the first place. Software patents
aren't free, and companies are fairly careful about maintaining their
value.
So, I am wondering if there is a middle ground here somewhere...
Let's
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I cant think of some brillant ideas that commercial products will definitely
crash the open source products if it can deliver services as what the
commercial does. IPR protection is highly regarded, that is the presence
of GPL and is necessary for
Nathaniel Borenstein [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
This strikes me as oversimplistic. What if a commercial enterprise
wanted to license its IPR in such a way that it put no constraints on
open source, but retained constraints on commercial competitors? I'm
not sure you can get around a technical
Simon Josefsson [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
There seem to be some misunderstanding here, free software is not
non-commercial. If someone wants to put restrictions of their ideas
on commercial competitors, that prevent the idea from being used in
free software as well. The rights associated with free
Margaret Wasserman [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I am afraid that your choice below won't mesh very well with why
companies have software patents in the first place.
You're right, it doesn't. Unfortunately, we really cannot live with
anything less than I have described. My personal wish that this
You guys don't have a problem with the defensive suspension/no first use
clauses, do you?
Is there a preferred wording for it?
Brian
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Eric S. Raymond
Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2004 10:56 PM
To: Sam
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Eric S. Raymond) writes:
...
The open-source community figured out by about 1997-1998 that there is no
way to discriminate between commercial and noncommercial activity
that does not create fatal uncertainties about who has what rights at
what times. When you add the
On Wed, 13 Oct 2004, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
Sam Hartman [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I think it would be wonderful if the free software community could
come to a consensus about what their requirements are.
FWIW, I tried to initiate this dialogue a couple of times, the latest
on Feb/Mar 2004, but as
On Fri, 15 Oct 2004, Brian Rosen wrote:
You guys don't have a problem with the defensive suspension/no first use
clauses, do you?
Is there a preferred wording for it?
I think you'll find virtually identical wording on this topic in several
well-known licenses:
This text does not seem to cover what we usually encounter in protocol
development. What happens is that you claim a patent that would be
infringed by implementing the protocol. Another company has its own patent
that it also claims would be infringed by implementing the protocol. You
are
Brian == Brian Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian You guys don't have a problem with the defensive
Brian suspension/no first use clauses, do you?
There is not consensus in the free software community on this issue.
I believe the Open Source Initiative (opensource.org) is OK with such
How can we not adopt some manner of open source attitude, Paul? That
has been the basic methodology of the IETF for some time. Otherwise, we
would be paying for every DNS lookup.
well, i am not the expert on this, but the discussion has to do with IPR
and change control being transferred to
On Fri, 15 Oct 2004, Sam Hartman wrote:
Brian == Brian Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian You guys don't have a problem with the defensive
Brian suspension/no first use clauses, do you?
There is not consensus in the free software community on this issue.
I believe the Open
Pekka Savola [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hmm.. Being an OSS/FSF enthusiast myself, I'm not sure if the last
requirement, about code re-use, is a strict requirement. Sure, it
would be nice if there wasn't such a thing, but it would seem to be
better to get the first two points and fail at the third
On Fri, 15 Oct 2004, Paul Vixie wrote:
How can we not adopt some manner of open source attitude, Paul? That
has been the basic methodology of the IETF for some time. Otherwise, we
would be paying for every DNS lookup.
as with this rediculous sender-id issue, which is a blatant attempt by
I do think that some patent holders want to make their technology
available to the free software community. I believe that if the free
software community agreed on what it wanted, it would be reasonable
for the IETF to pass that along to IPR holders as information to
consider when drafting
eric is saying that the previous situation
whereby a draft author surrendered the IPR before RFC publication was better.
that has never been a requirement
Scott
___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
On Fri, 15 Oct 2004, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
Pekka Savola [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hmm.. Being an OSS/FSF enthusiast myself, I'm not sure if the last
requirement, about code re-use, is a strict requirement. Sure, it
would be nice if there wasn't such a thing, but it would seem to be
better to
On 15-okt-04, at 15:46, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
MMI's primary intention is to protect the research investment that has
allowed them to build faster and more accurate cheese graters than the
competition.
[...]
Are there any IPR terms that MMI could offer that would meet these
goals while also
Agreed,
I'm never using the term IP again unless it's internet protocol.
What I meant indeed was patents in the context of software.
I Should NOT have made the assumption in this crowd, though I think
everyone agrees, that nobody here is really talking about trademarks
... notwithstanding, how can a specification be considered a standard
if over half of the operators on the planet refuse to deploy it
because of patent/licence issues.
i can't understand why this matters. if ietf were to change its policies
so that only open technology was allowed in the
Paul Vixie [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
eric is saying that the previous situation
whereby a draft author surrendered the IPR before RFC publication was better.
various others have said but what if the IPR terms try to distinguish
between commercial and noncommercial? my
RL 'Bob' Morgan [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Fri, 15 Oct 2004, Brian Rosen wrote:
You guys don't have a problem with the defensive suspension/no first
use clauses, do you?
Is there a preferred wording for it?
I think you'll find virtually identical wording on this topic in several
well-known
Sam Hartman [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
This is one of the many reasons why I think the free software
community needs to get together and decide what it wants *before*
coming to the IETF.
Your two people to go to on this would be RMS (representing the FSF)
or me (representing the OSI); between us I
On Fri, 15 Oct 2004, Paul Vixie wrote:
... notwithstanding, how can a specification be considered a standard
if over half of the operators on the planet refuse to deploy it
because of patent/licence issues.
i can't understand why this matters.
this matters as concerns the defacto sphere
On Fri, 15 Oct 2004, Brian Rosen wrote:
This text does not seem to cover what we usually encounter in protocol
development. What happens is that you claim a patent that would be
infringed by implementing the protocol. Another company has its own
patent that it also claims would be infringed
On Fri, 15 Oct 2004, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
Paul Vixie [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
eric is saying that the previous situation
whereby a draft author surrendered the IPR before RFC publication was better.
various others have said but what if the IPR terms try to
On Fri, 15 Oct 2004, Paul Vixie wrote:
especially the note from steve kent (then Security AD).
Steve Crocker was a Security AD (and the first one for that matter).
Steve Kent was never a Security AD. Steve Kent served on the IAB for a
very long time, preceding all Security ADs, although I
Jeff Schiller was the second Security AD, who started around 1994 or so.
I forget exactly when.
see http://www.ietf.org/iesg_mem.html
Scott
___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
From: Eric S. Raymond [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Your two people to go to on this would be RMS (representing the FSF)
or me (representing the OSI); between us I believe we can speak for
over 95% of the community.
I hate it when elected politicans presume to speak for me. I will not
sit quietly and
There are two (2) Internet-Draft cutoff dates for the 61st IETF Meeting
in Washington, DC, USA:
October 18: Cutoff Date for Initial (i.e., -00) Internet-Draft Submissions
All initial Internet-Drafts (-00) must be submitted by Monday, October 18 at
9:00 AM ET. As always, all initial
The IESG has approved the following documents:
- 'DNS Security Introduction and Requirements '
draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-intro-13.txt as a Proposed Standard
- 'Protocol Modifications for the DNS Security Extensions '
draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-protocol-09.txt as a Proposed Standard
- 'Resource
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Fast Reroute Extensions to RSVP-TE for LSP Tunnels '
draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-lsp-fastreroute-07.txt as a Proposed Standard
This document is the product of the Multiprotocol Label Switching Working
Group.
The IESG contact persons are Alex Zinin
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'The Kerberos Network Authentication Service (V5) '
draft-ietf-krb-wg-kerberos-clarifications-07.txt as a Proposed Standard
This document is the product of the Kerberos WG Working Group.
The IESG contact persons are Russ Housley and Steve
37 matches
Mail list logo
