> 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 Proper
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.
uying.
From: Ted Hardie [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Fri 19/10/2007 5:32 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ietf@ietf.org
Cc: 'Contreras, Jorge'
Subject: RE: A priori IPR choices [Re: Third Last
Call:draft-housley-tls-authz-extns]
At 1:58 PM -0700 10/19/07, Ted Hardie wrote:
>
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 wo
> 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 specificatio
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
Rosen
> -Original Message-
> From: Paul Hoffman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, October 19, 2007 8:43 AM
> To: Simon Josefsson
> Cc: ietf@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: A priori IPR choices [Re: Third Last Call:draft-housley-tls-
> authz-extns]
>
> At 10:46 AM +0
E Carpenter
Cc: Hallam-Baker, Phillip; Simon Josefsson; ietf@ietf.org; Tim Polk
Subject: A priori IPR choices [Re: Third Last
Call:draft-housley-tls-authz-extns]
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 w
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
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 th
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 consistenc
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
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 (or more) can't
implement?
I don't kno
Simon Josefsson; ietf@ietf.org; Tim Polk
Subject: A priori IPR choices [Re: Third Last Call:draft-housley-tls-
authz-extns]
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 requir
of ideas are those that come from having to design
around a patent that isn't available for free.
/Larry Rosen
> -Original Message-
> From: Scott Brim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 3:12 PM
> To: Brian E Carpenter
> Cc: Simon Josefsson; ietf@ietf
Phill,
If there were in addition some standard non disclosure contracts, standard contracts for holding pre-standards meeting and the like the result could be turned into a book which most managers in the valley would probably end up buying.
Most of them, and those in Armonk that I used to wor
> -Original Message-
> From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2007 12:27 PM
> To: Hallam-Baker, Phillip
> Cc: Ted Hardie; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ietf@ietf.org; Contreras, Jorge
> Subject: Re: A priori IPR choices [Re: Third Last Call:
)
-Original Message-
From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2007 12:26 PM Pacific Standard Time
To: Hallam-Baker, Phillip
Cc: Ted Hardie; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ietf@ietf.org; Contreras, Jorge
Subject:Re: A priori IPR choices [Re: Third Last
On Sat, 20 Oct 2007, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
> Brian Carpenter wrote:
> > ... so that the
> > goal of 100% unencumbered standards is unrealistic.
>...
> But we're talking here about IETF standards, specifications that are
> prepared cooperatively and for free by talented individuals, companies and
--On Saturday, 20 October, 2007 19:15 -0700 Lawrence Rosen
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>...
> But we're talking here about IETF standards, specifications
> that are prepared cooperatively and for free by talented
> individuals, companies and countries around the world. These
> specifications are
John C Klensin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > But we're talking here about IETF standards, specifications
> > that are prepared cooperatively and for free by talented
> > individuals, companies and countries around the world. These
> > specifications are intended for implementation everywhere to
>
EMAIL PROTECTED]; ietf@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: A priori IPR choices [Re: Third Last Call:draft-housley-tls-
> authz-extns]
>
>
>
> --On Saturday, 20 October, 2007 19:15 -0700 Lawrence Rosen
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >...
> > But we're talking
--On Monday, 22 October, 2007 21:57 +0200 Norbert Bollow
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> John C Klensin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > But we're talking here about IETF standards, specifications
>> > that are prepared cooperatively and for free by talented
>> > individuals, companies and countries
For what it's worth, I'd like to write in general support of
re-evaluating several aspects of our patent policy. I 'm not quite
writing in support of rechartering IPR at this time. First, I think
they have critical copyright work to finish. Second, I think that we
need to find a way to have the
On Monday 22 October 2007 16:27, John C Klensin wrote:
> I also note that we can easily get onto a slippery slope here.
> Many companies view the GPL to be an encumbrance no less severe
> than the patent policies of other companies. Perhaps it is even
> more severe because encumbrances associated
I'm confused by this part of the discussion. How can a standard be
encumbered by GPL? As far as I know, GPL does not prevent anyone from
implementing a standard without any restrictions or fees, just
possibly from using somebody else's code under certain conditions. I
don't think that anybo
On 2007-10-23 16:20, Henning Schulzrinne wrote:
I'm confused by this part of the discussion. How can a standard be
encumbered by GPL? As far as I know, GPL does not prevent anyone from
implementing a standard without any restrictions or fees, just possibly
from using somebody else's code under
John C Klensin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --On Monday, 22 October, 2007 21:57 +0200 Norbert Bollow
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > John C Klensin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Larry, with all due respect, if you substitute "ISO/IEC JTC1"
> >> or "IEEE" (at least in the computer and communicati
Norbert Bollow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I also note that we can easily get onto a slippery slope here.
>> Many companies view the GPL to be an encumbrance no less severe
>> than the patent policies of other companies. Perhaps it is even
>> more severe because encumbrances associated with pa
On 22 Oct 2007 at 17:46 -0400, Sam Hartman allegedly wrote:
> * Phil's proposal has been shot down prematurely in my opinion. I
> agree that his current version would not fly. However I do think
> there are working groups that could make conclusions about their
> patent policies and for whi
> "Scott" == Scott Brim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Scott> On 22 Oct 2007 at 17:46 -0400, Sam Hartman allegedly wrote:
>> * Phil's proposal has been shot down prematurely in my opinion.
>> I agree that his current version would not fly. However I do
>> think there are working
> "Simon" == Simon Josefsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Simon> Norbert Bollow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> I also note that we can easily get onto a slippery slope here.
>>> Many companies view the GPL to be an encumbrance no less
>>> severe than the patent policies of othe
At 3:06 PM -0400 10/23/07, Sam Hartman wrote:
>
>Let me suggest starting with a lesser goal. Try to build a consensus
>that unless there is a good reason to do otherwise, it needs to be
>possible to write an open-source implementation of a standard and that
>the absence of such an implementation s
> "Ted" == Ted Hardie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Ted> At 3:06 PM -0400 10/23/07, Sam Hartman wrote:
>> Let me suggest starting with a lesser goal. Try to build a
>> consensus that unless there is a good reason to do otherwise,
>> it needs to be possible to write an open-sour
At 4:35 PM -0400 10/23/07, Sam Hartman wrote:
>
>my assumption is that our standards that are useful tend to be useful
>in open-source environments. And that people should at least stop and
>think if there is not an OS implementation of a standard. We might
>find a few areas (MPLS and CCAMP sprin
36 matches
Mail list logo
