Re: Withdrawal of Approval and Second Last Call: draft-housley-tls-authz-extns

Simon, Can you identify any instance of a non-profit GPL implementor or distributor being sued for not having "sent a postcard" for the style of RF license you are objecting to? Brian ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailma

Re: Withdrawal of Approval and Second Last Call: draft-housley-tls-authz-extns

Brian E Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Simon, > > Can you identify any instance of a non-profit GPL implementor or > distributor being sued for not having "sent a postcard" for the > style of RF license you are objecting to? Brian, two responses: 1) You seem to assume that GPL implement

Re: Withdrawal of Approval and Second Last Call: draft-housley-tls-authz-extns

Simon Josefsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > There are examples where companies won't respond to requests for these > type of RF patent licenses. A recent example that came to mind was > related to the BOCU patent by IBM: > > http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.text.unicode.devel/23256 A better UR

Re: Withdrawal of Approval and Second Last Call: draft-housley-tls-authz-extns

On 2007-04-11 10:08, Simon Josefsson wrote: Brian E Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Simon, Can you identify any instance of a non-profit GPL implementor or distributor being sued for not having "sent a postcard" for the style of RF license you are objecting to? Brian, two responses: 1

Re: Withdrawal of Approval and Second Last Call: draft-housley-tls-authz-extns

Simon, Do you have examples of licenses/IPR declarations that work better with GPL and other forms of open source? Something for Mark and the rest of us to use as a model, perhaps? Jari ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman

Re: Withdrawal of Approval and Second Last Call: draft-housley-tls-authz-extns

Brian E Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On 2007-04-11 10:08, Simon Josefsson wrote: >> Brian E Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >>> Simon, >>> >>> Can you identify any instance of a non-profit GPL implementor or >>> distributor being sued for not having "sent a postcard" for the >>

Re: Withdrawal of Approval and Second Last Call: draft-housley-tls-authz-extns

Jari Arkko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Simon, > > Do you have examples of licenses/IPR declarations that work better with > GPL and other forms of open source? Something for Mark and the rest > of us to use as a model, perhaps? Jari, thank you for asking! I am working on a document with guidel

Re: Withdrawal of Approval and Second Last Call: draft-housley-tls-authz-extns

Just one comment: Brian E Carpenter writes: On 2007-04-11 10:08, Simon Josefsson wrote: What typically happens in practice, among good-faith practitioners, is that there won't be any GPL (or Apache, or Mozilla, or ...) implementation of the patented technology at all, because the

Re: Withdrawal of Approval and Second Last Call: draft-housley-tls-authz-extns

On Wed, 11 Apr 2007, Jari Arkko wrote: > > Do you have examples of licenses/IPR declarations that work better with > GPL and other forms of open source? Something for Mark and the rest > of us to use as a model, perhaps? A recent slap given by Apache to Sun

Re: Withdrawal of Approval and Second Last Call: draft-housley-tls-authz-extns

Simon, > I am working on a document with guidelines for free standards in the > Great! > IETF, and I have written the following regarding patents. Much of the > material came from this thread. I have not yet discussed this > document in the free software community (which I intend to do befor

Re: Withdrawal of Approval and Second Last Call: draft-housley-tls-authz-extns

Simon, 4.3. Example License Text Here is a simplistic patent license that would grant third parties the necessary rights in order to use it in free software. X grants a worldwide, non-exclusive, fully-paid, perpetual, royaltee-free patent license to everyo

Re: Withdrawal of Approval and Second Last Call: draft-housley-tls-authz-extns

On 2007-04-11 11:34, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote: Just one comment: Brian E Carpenter writes: On 2007-04-11 10:08, Simon Josefsson wrote: What typically happens in practice, among good-faith practitioners, is that there won't be any GPL (or Apache, or Mozilla, or ...) implementation of th

Re: Withdrawal of Approval and Second Last Call: draft-housley-tls-authz-extns

Jari Arkko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Ok. But let me clarify my question. I was specifically after "running > code" that > has worked well in some case, and not so much specific new text. (Running > code would show that at least some open source project was OK with the > license and that at lea

Re: Withdrawal of Approval and Second Last Call: draft-housley-tls-authz-extns

On Wed, Apr 11, 2007 at 10:27:31AM +0200, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > >1) You seem to assume that GPL implementers would violate the patent > > license by redistributing their code without sending a postcard. > > In order words, your question assumes and implies bad-faith amongst > > GPL imple

Re: Withdrawal of Approval and Second Last Call: draft-housley-tls-authz-extns

Brian E Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On 2007-04-11 11:34, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote: >> Just one comment: >> >> Brian E Carpenter writes: >>> On 2007-04-11 10:08, Simon Josefsson wrote: What typically happens in practice, among good-faith practitioners, is that there won't be

Re: Withdrawal of Approval and Second Last Call: draft-housley-tls-authz-extns

Ted, Well, if IPR owners don't actually care, why are they asking people to send a postcard? It would seem to be an unnecessary administrative burden for the IPR owners, yes? My assumption is that they care if the party that fails to send a postcard is one of their competitors. That's what th

Re: Withdrawal of Approval and Second Last Call: draft-housley-tls-authz-extns

On 04/11/2007 05:22 AM, Simon Josefsson wrote: > I am working on a document with guidelines for free standards in the > IETF Please don't use "free standards" this way. The IETF produces free standards. Some of those standards have IPR licenses that you don't like. _

Re: Withdrawal of Approval and Second Last Call: draft-housley-tls-authz-extns

Scott W Brim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On 04/11/2007 05:22 AM, Simon Josefsson wrote: >> I am working on a document with guidelines for free standards in the >> IETF > > Please don't use "free standards" this way. The IETF produces free > standards. According to what definition of 'free stan

Re: Withdrawal of Approval and Second Last Call: draft-housley-tls-authz-extns

On Wed, Apr 11, 2007 at 01:54:53PM +0200, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > > >Well, if IPR owners don't actually care, why are they asking people to > >send a postcard? It would seem to be an unnecessary administrative > >burden for the IPR owners, yes? > > My assumption is that they care if the party

"free standards" [was Re: Withdrawal of Approval and Second Last ...]

Simon sez: > According to what definition of 'free standards'? I agree with the other Scott - please be clear in what you are wanting to write about there seem to be as many definitions of "free standards" as people writing about them - my definition revolves around how much money to I have t

Re: Withdrawal of Approval and Second Last Call: draft-housley-tls-authz-extns

On Wed, Apr 11, 2007 at 01:54:53PM +0200, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > Ted, > > >Well, if IPR owners don't actually care, why are they asking people to > >send a postcard? It would seem to be an unnecessary administrative > >burden for the IPR owners, yes? > > My assumption is that they care if th

Re: Withdrawal of Approval and Second Last Call: draft-housley-tls-authz-extns

On Wed, Apr 11, 2007 at 01:54:53PM +0200, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > Ted, > > >Well, if IPR owners don't actually care, why are they asking people to > >send a postcard? It would seem to be an unnecessary administrative > >burden for the IPR owners, yes? > > My assumption is that they care if th

Re: Withdrawal of Approval and Second Last Call: draft-housley-tls-authz-extns

Hello; On Apr 11, 2007, at 9:33 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Apr 11, 2007 at 01:54:53PM +0200, Brian E Carpenter wrote: Ted, Well, if IPR owners don't actually care, why are they asking people to send a postcard? It would seem to be an unnecessary administrative burden for the IPR

Re: Withdrawal of Approval and Second Last Call: draft-housley-tls-authz-extns

On Apr 11, 2007, at 4:54 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: Ted, Well, if IPR owners don't actually care, why are they asking people to send a postcard? It would seem to be an unnecessary administrative burden for the IPR owners, yes? My assumption is that they care if the party that fails to

Re: Withdrawal of Approval and Second Last Call: draft-housley-tls-authz-extns

Jari Arkko wrote: > Simon, > > Do you have examples of licenses/IPR declarations that work better with > GPL and other forms of open source? Something for Mark and the rest > of us to use as a model, perhaps? Non-assert works well... http://www.ietf.org/ietf/IPR/nokia-updated-ipr-draft-saifullah

Re: Withdrawal of Approval and Second Last Call: draft-housley-tls-authz-extns

On Wednesday, April 11, 2007 11:16:30 AM +0200 Simon Josefsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: The assumption is false: the goal of free software is not to make the Internet work better. The assumption is not false. The goal of the IETF is to make the Internet work better. I assume Brian cho

RE: Withdrawal of Approval and Second

> > Do you have examples of licenses/IPR declarations that work better with > > GPL and other forms of open source? Something for Mark and the rest > > of us to use as a model, perhaps? and > I am not speaking > for any particular company, and certainly not for the one that pays me, > but it's cl

Re: Withdrawal of Approval and Second Last Call: draft-housley-tls-authz-extns

On Wednesday, April 11, 2007 11:34:42 AM -0400 Jeffrey Hutzelman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: For the record, I think your concerns about this particular license are overstated. Neither this patent license nor the open-source software licenses you quote are as buggy as you seem to think they

Re: Withdrawal of Approval and Second Last Call: draft-housley-tls-authz-extns

--On Wednesday, 11 April, 2007 09:43 -0400 Theodore Tso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, Apr 11, 2007 at 01:54:53PM +0200, Brian E Carpenter > wrote: >... >> My assumption is that they care if the party that fails to >> send a postcard is one of their competitors. That's what the >> defensiv

RE: Withdrawal of Approval and Second Last Call: draft-housley-tls-authz-extns

> Ted, jumping ahead a little bit, how much of your concern would > be eliminated if that entry in the template said "Royalty Free > and RAND" (or "RAND and Royalty Free"), rather than just RF? I > agree that "RF and totally unreasonable" is a possible case, but > am trying to understand whethe

Re: Last Call: draft-williams-on-channel-binding (On the Use of Channel Bindings to Secure Channels) to Proposed Standard

I think this a significant I-D which could be, in a few years, be the way in which security is done in the Internet. But I also think it understates its achievements in the Abstract and that it may be inaccessible to those who would use it, those who are not also security experts. The Abstract re

Re: Last Call: draft-williams-on-channel-binding (On the Use ofChannel Bindings to Secure Channels) to Proposed Standard

Hi - > From: "Tom.Petch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "ietf" > Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 10:43 AM > Subject: Re: Last Call: draft-williams-on-channel-binding (On the Use > ofChannel Bindings to Secure Channels) to Proposed Standard ... > Otherwise those who would benefit from it - isms, netco

Re: Last Call: draft-williams-on-channel-binding (On the Use ofChannel Bindings to Secure Channels) to Proposed Standard

On Wednesday, April 11, 2007 12:09:24 PM -0700 Randy Presuhn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hi - From: "Tom.Petch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "ietf" Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 10:43 AM Subject: Re: Last Call: draft-williams-on-channel-binding (On the Use ofChannel Bindings to Secure Channel

Re: Withdrawal of Approval and Second Last Call: draft-housley-tls-authz-extns

On Wed, Apr 11, 2007 at 01:24:02PM -0400, John C Klensin wrote: > Ted, jumping ahead a little bit, how much of your concern would > be eliminated if that entry in the template said "Royalty Free > and RAND" (or "RAND and Royalty Free"), rather than just RF? I > agree that "RF and totally unreasona

Re: Withdrawal of Approval and Second Last Call: draft-housley-tls-authz-extns

On Wed, 11 Apr 2007, Theodore Tso wrote: ... Unlike some OSS advocates, I don't feel a particular need to to require a patent license which is valid for any field of endeavor; just the essential claims necessary to implement an IETF standard is IMHO sufficient (realistically I doubt many IPR ho

Re: Last Call: draft-williams-on-channel-binding (On the Use of Channel Bindings to Secure Channels) to Proposed Standard

I think this draft is not ready for publication (I will respond separately on the applicability of this work to EAP channel binding): it is too abstract to the extent that it is confusing. It is hard to keep track of the words channel binding and channel bindings, difficult to associate them w

Re: [Emu] Last call comments: draft-williams-on-channel-binding-01.txt: EAP channel bindings

Hi Sam, Here is my take on this topic: After having reviewed "draft-williams-on-channel-binding-01," I feel that putting EAP in scope of that document would require a rather involved revision of the document. As Charles noted it might require further abstraction of the concept of channel bin