The DNSEXT WG is a good example where patented technology has been
presented and time has been spent on discussing what to do with it.
Some time later the working group drafted a requirements document (RFC
4986) which contained the following requirement '5.2. No Known
Intellectual Property
At 1:58 PM -0700 10/19/07, Ted Hardie wrote:
Cisco has probably disclosed the most patents in an
IETF context (163 disclosures in any case; I'm having trouble getting the
tool to give me comparisons), but its licenses don't seem to have allowed
both open source and proprietary implementations.
At 3:45 PM -0700 10/19/07, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
Ted Hardie wrote:
Ah, I see why you appear to have changed your position. You actually
want the result you're arguing for built into the charter of
the IPR working group, beforehand without letting the community actually
discuss it.
The question is whether in the light of the SCO vs IBM case the reciprocity
clauses actually have the intended effect.
Having been involved in the license issues surrounding WS-* I do not beleive
that it is possible to construct an open license that is compatible with open
source practices
Actually, I saw the quesiton of whether the charter should be
extended into re-visiting the patent rules fairly discussed in the
working group. (Which is the usual place to decide if we even want
to do the work.) You were aware of and involved in the
discussion. The rough consensus of the
Brian,
I agree that nobody can know in advance if they will have IPR issues at the
end. What I am arguing for is that the set of possible end points is known in
advance.
From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Fri 19/10/2007 4:34 PM
To:
I DO want IETF to
adopt policies concerning the disclosure of patents when known by WG
participants, and the mandatory licensing of those patents for free by those
patent owners who actually participate in and contribute to a specification,
or alternatively the withdrawal of that specification as
On Thu, Oct 18, 2007 at 07:21:55PM -0700,
Paul Hoffman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 35 lines which said:
Could you give an example of an WG in which this would have been
preferable?
MARID, certainly.
Yes, there are a few engineers in the IETF who like to play armchair
lawyer and
Paul Hoffman wrote:
Early on is much different than when the WG is formed. It is
reasonable to talk about IPR desired *on a particular technology*
when that technology begins to be discussed in the WG.
And so, if our reasonable policy is that the IPR desired on IETF's
standardized Internet
I would expect RAND charters to be issued rarely if at all. I would only expect
a RAND charter to issue if there was some overwhelmingly compelling IPR that
everyone agreed is simply indispensible.
The only case I can remember where this was the case in the past was public key
cryptography.
At 10:46 AM +0200 10/19/07, Simon Josefsson wrote:
Paul Hoffman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
At 4:10 PM -0700 10/18/07, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
Isn't it preferable to get into early battles over IP rules--and make sure
those rules are clear to WG participants--before we have wasted our time and
The large organizations do not seem to have any problem participating in OASIS
where this is the rule. Admittedly there does seem to be an issue in W3C with
one company but that seems to be due to internal politics.
The only obligation that arises out of the OASIS system is that if you have
Paul Hoffman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
At 4:10 PM -0700 10/18/07, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
Isn't it preferable to get into early battles over IP rules--and make sure
those rules are clear to WG participants--before we have wasted our time and
resources developing specifications that half the world
Ted Hardie wrote:
Ah, I see why you appear to have changed your position. You actually
want the result you're arguing for built into the charter of
the IPR working group, beforehand without letting the community actually
discuss it. Thanks for re-affirming my faith in your consistency.
At 8:42 AM -0700 10/19/07, Paul Hoffman wrote:
The inclination to standardize only non-patented technology in DNSEXT is
fairly strong. If the WG had made the policy explicit early on, the
discussions related to the patented ideas could have been more easily
dismissed. Time could be spent on more
Scott Brim wrote:
On 19 Oct 2007 at 10:30 +1300, Brian E Carpenter allegedly wrote:
On 2007-10-19 05:47, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
What I would suggest is that new working groups be required to
specify the governing IPR rules in their charter
...
Violent disagreement. That would make
Phill,
If folk can't get their act together when a WG starts then why should we expect
them to be able to do so at the end when we are trying to close the work?
Because of the difference between known unknowns and unknown unknowns.
At the beginning, you're asking an entirely hypothetical
17 matches
Mail list logo
