On Thu, 21 Oct 2004, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> Brian E Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > I don't think we can require the IESG to negotiate anything. There are
> > all kinds of legal issues there. To my knowledge, both WGs and the IESG
> > do think carefully about this, but often conclude that the
Hi -
> From: "Pekka Savola" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Paul Hoffman / VPNC" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2004 1:27 PM
> Subject: Re: Shuffle those deck chairs!
...
> Hmm. Maybe what the IETF could also find useful is an informal
> repository where pe
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Richard Shocke
y writes:
>
>At Fall VON here in Boston Mark Spencer of Asterisk introduced a new
>concept for TN to URI resolution you might be interested in looking at.
>
>Personally as with most peer to peer technologies you have some global
>scaling issues but h
The ipr topic is a bit offtopic, but I can't resist..
On Thu, 21 Oct 2004, Paul Hoffman / VPNC wrote:
> Which is still true, I hope. I don't believe in either case that the
> WG was making a decision on what technology to standardize on based
> on the patent issues. In the case of the Certicom c
At 2:18 PM -0400 10/21/04, Michael Richardson wrote:
Bill> Many IPR claims are bogus.
yet, I've tried to have this conversation SEVERAL times in the IPsec
WG wrt both the Certicom claim and the Microsoft NAT-T claims.
In both cases, I've been told that I'm not a lawyer.
Which is still true,
> Please do NOT spread that kind of total misinformation.
>
> You have to disclose your IPR as soon as reasonably possible when an
> internet-draft or RFC potentially infringing on it has been published,
> no matter the category it's headed.
Pekka is correct
Scott
___
On Thu, Oct 21, 2004 08:56:15PM +0300, Pekka Savola allegedly wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Oct 2004, Scott W Brim wrote:
> > Is there anything in this message that disagrees with 3668? 3668 is a
> > little more "nuanced", for example you don't have to disclose until it
> > looks like your idea is going to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> "Bill" == Bill Sommerfeld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I'm with ESR on this one. The W3C bit the bullet and built a
>> patent/IPR policy that has integrity and is based on the notion
>> that the Net works properly when important components c
Picking out a minor subthread from Paul's long and passionate thread:
--On onsdag, oktober 20, 2004 15:15:58 + Paul Vixie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
i don't agree that it shouldn't be allowed to be an rfc. i do think the
iesg/iab should think carefully about making something a proposed
stand
--On onsdag, oktober 20, 2004 15:48:35 -0400 Richard Shockey
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
At Fall VON here in Boston Mark Spencer of Asterisk introduced a new
concept for TN to URI resolution you might be interested in looking at.
Personally as with most peer to peer technologies you have some glo
On Wed, 20 Oct 2004, Scott W Brim wrote:
> Is there anything in this message that disagrees with 3668? 3668 is a
> little more "nuanced", for example you don't have to disclose until it
> looks like your idea is going to be incorporated in something headed
> towards standards track, but generally
This was down at the end of a long post, but everybody in this discussion
should see it.
Paul Vixie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> as much as i hate to be seen agreeing with mr. raymond, who has
> inaccurately characterized both his own representative powers and the
> minority status of those views of min
On Thu, 2004-10-21 at 11:49, Tim Bray wrote:
> I'm with ESR on this one. The W3C bit the bullet and built a
> patent/IPR policy that has integrity and is based on the notion that
> the Net works properly when important components can be built by
> un-funded independents without worrying about g
Hi Paul,
Ignoring the rest of your post and just picking up on this part:
3. with regard to process transparency, you have all had a chance to
read my thoughts about california's "sunshine law" which holds that:
The people of this State do not yield their sovereignty to the
agenc
Well said, Joel.
At one time, the Internet was a child and needed to be tended by its
parent in order for it to survive. Now it is considerably bigger and
stronger than its parent. Of course, the parent continues to seek how to
most appropriately help its huge offspring. My own feeling is that th
[vixie]
> ... i do think the iesg/iab should think carefully about making
> something a proposed standard or draft standard or full standard
> without having first negotiated royalty-free use rights on behalf of
> all future implementors, as scrocker did with jbezos for the RSADSI
> IPR that went i
On Oct 21 2004, at 17:49 Uhr, Tim Bray wrote:
If the IETF wants to ignore history and build an Internet where that
doesn't hold, feel free, but it's not a very interesting kind of
place.
This has been rehashed a lot, but there are two little facts left out
from the current repetition of the disc
I think this is seriously miscontrueing the situation.
Different groups participate in the success of the internet in different ways.
I have no objection to Debian, Apache, Nortel, or Cisco fighting patents
which they believe hurt the internet.
That fight is not the job the IETF has demonstrated s
On Oct 21, 2004, at 7:59 AM, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
Brian E Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
I don't think we can require the IESG to negotiate anything. There are
all kinds of legal issues there. To my knowledge, both WGs and the
IESG
do think carefully about this, but often conclude that the defau
Brian E Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I don't think we can require the IESG to negotiate anything. There are
> all kinds of legal issues there. To my knowledge, both WGs and the IESG
> do think carefully about this, but often conclude that the default IETF
> conditions (RAND) are realistic and a
--On torsdag, oktober 21, 2004 08:10:07 -0400 Patrice Lyons
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
In this context, there has been
some talk of donation recently of patents for IETF, particularly a group
of patents, for IETF purposes at little or no cost.
could you give a little more pointer here, please?
A
Hi Patrice,
At 11:07 AM -0400 10/20/04, Patrice Lyons wrote:
You mentioned the importance of keeping support services, such as management
of cash flow, separate from IETF technical efforts. I share this concern in
large part. However, I would draw a distinction between carrying out
routine admini
Paul,
Paul Vixie wrote:
...
i don't agree that it shouldn't be allowed to be an rfc. i do think the
iesg/iab should think carefully about making something a proposed
standard or draft standard or full standard without having first negotiated
royalty-free use rights on behalf of all future implemen
Margaret,
Thanks for sharing my Internet-Draft on the IETF administrative processes
with the IETF discussion list. I also appreciated your recognition and kind
words about the role played by CNRI, and Bob Kahn in particular, in
supporting the IETF community. I have since revised my Internet-Draft
Joel,
Thanks for your comments.
First, incorporation of the IETF. While there are many reasons why
incorporation of an association is desirable, one important reason for a
technical association like IETF to incorporate is the substantial increase
in exposure to potential liabilities arising from c
After John's note, I've done a little investigating
- First: WG chair approval of -00 drafts of the form draft-ietf-
seems to have been around "forever". I could not find the beginning of it,
but it's at least before London (IETF-51, August 2001).
- After the San Francisco IETF (IETF-56, Mar
On Tue, 19 Oct 2004, shogunx wrote:
> >
> > When the open-source tide really turns, and the best quality source code
> > and technology is free, then it will be subject to theft of the sort where
> > it is made improperly not-free. Then it will be the open-source community
> > that is trying to e
Bill Sommerfeld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> This looks to me like an informal attempt at forming a "design team".
>
> I think it would be good for you (ESR) to review the text on design
> teams in RFC2418 and the subsequent IESG note:
>
> http://www.ietf.org/IESG/STATEMENTS/Design-Teams.txt
>
On Wed, 2004-10-20 at 02:34, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> 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 ag
On Wed, 2004-10-20 at 02:34, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> 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 ag
On 19 Oct 2004, Paul Vixie wrote:
> > I've been around for decades and know at least a few people who have
> > written more than 10,000 more or less freely redistributable and popular
> > lines. Few of them are members of either your or Mr. Stallman's
> > organizations, although both of you frequ
Is there anything in this message that disagrees with 3668? 3668 is a
little more "nuanced", for example you don't have to disclose until it
looks like your idea is going to be incorporated in something headed
towards standards track, but generally I think what you describe is how
things work now.
At Fall VON here in Boston Mark Spencer of Asterisk introduced a new
concept for TN to URI resolution you might be interested in looking at.
Personally as with most peer to peer technologies you have some global
scaling issues but he has expressed an interest in proposing the technology
in the
> From: "Eric S. Raymond" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 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 toget
Carl Malamud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Well, yes, perhaps we are a gang of baboons. You've got a church model
> of open source with you as pope.
Funny, I don't recall having excommunicated anyone or spoken ex cathedra
lately. If you want blessings, apply to RMS in his "St. Ignucius" persona;
I don
Harald,
I had not submitted a WG-named draft close to the deadline for
some time, and obviously didn't notice earlier versions of the
"chair approval even a week further in advance" announcement. I
apologize for assuming it was a new problem and, hence, for
assuming that it occurred after the dis
somebody told me...
> I agree with you 100% on ipr disclosure. I'd go even farther:
> if you want it to be an ietf spec and you have relevant ipr,
> you have to disclose *and* quit-claim. And, yes, it would make
> sense for the admin. body to have somebody agressively doing
> searches just in ca
37 matches
Mail list logo
