[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Vernon Schryver) wrote on 19.10.04 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Someone wrote me privately:
>
> ] For an open source guy he
> ] has some pretty funny legal language:
> ]
> ] http://www.catb.org/~esr/copying.html
>
> That page includes this r
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Carl Malamud) wrote on 20.10.04 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Eric -
>
> > 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)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Eric S. Raymond) wrote on 23.10.04 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> shogunx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > In what way? Microsoft now knows that with the mere threat of a patent
> > > it either can shut down IETF standards work it dislikes or seize control
> > > of the results through th
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Eric S. Raymond) wrote on 20.10.04 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Between us (and especially if we agree), I believe we can speak *with
> regard to this question* for 95% of the open-source community. This
> does not make either of us power-mad dictators intent on domination,
> jus
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian E Carpenter) wrote on 21.10.04 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Patent holders who choose to stay outside the standards setting
> process are not in the least impressed by the IPR policy of the
> standards body, whether it is the W3C, the IETF, or anywhere else.
> Those are the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Eric S. Raymond) wrote on 15.10.04 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> 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 g
> > > ... 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 acceptable.
> >
> > what you call "concluding", i call "railroading" and "inertial ignorance."
>
> From when I was inside the bl
On my way to the dust bin of history, I happened to notice this posting
from Eric S. Raymond:
In what way? Microsoft now knows that with the mere threat of a patent
it either can shut down IETF standards work it dislikes or seize control
of the results through the patent system. The IETF has d
--On Thursday, 21 October, 2004 22:16 +0200 Brian E Carpenter
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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
Tim Bray wrote:
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
Paul,
Paul Vixie wrote:
[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
I
scott bradner wrote:
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
But to be precise, the requi
On Sat, 23 Oct 2004, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> shogunx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > In what way? Microsoft now knows that with the mere threat of a patent
> > > it either can shut down IETF standards work it dislikes or seize control
> > > of the results through the patent system. The IETF has dign
shogunx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > In what way? Microsoft now knows that with the mere threat of a patent
> > it either can shut down IETF standards work it dislikes or seize control
> > of the results through the patent system. The IETF has dignaled that it
> > will do nothing to oppose or prevent
> > > patent raid on a development standard, and invited future raids by
> > > Microsoft and others.
> >
> > Given that the WG was shutdown with no ratified standard, this also seems
> > like a serious misrepresentation.
>
> In what way? Microsoft now knows that with the mere threat of a patent
>
Kai Henningsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > 1. Two major open-source development groups felt it was both necessary
> > and appropriate to state that they would not implement SenderID
> > regardless of IETF's decision. This is specifically what I meant
> > by routing around the IETF.
>
> You are confu
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Eric S. Raymond) wrote on 11.10.04 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Kai Henningsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Why is that bad?
>
> There were, actually, two bad parts:
>
> 1. Two major open-source development groups felt it was both necessary
> and appropriate to state that they would n
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (scott bradner)
> see http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Prior_art
>
> prior art is still useful
but not necessarily in naive, open compilations that do patent
holders the most good. I was told by participants in the XOR-cursor
court battle that it was lost because the op
> With the US moving to a European-style "first-to-file" discipline,
> how would this help?
see http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Prior_art
prior art is still useful
Scott
___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo
On Thu, 21 Oct 2004, Randy Presuhn wrote:
> > From: "Pekka Savola" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: "Paul Hoffman / VPNC" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2004 1:27 PM
> > Subject: Re:
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
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 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
Internet. Other groups have other strengths which I hope they
will use for the benefit of all.
-Original Message-
From: Joel M. Halpern [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2004 9:01 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Shuffle those deck chairs!
I
[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
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
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.
> 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
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
>Between us (and especially if we agree), I believe we can speak *with
>regard to this question* for 95% of the open-source community. This
>does not make either of us power-mad dictators intent on domination,
>just most peoples' recognized experts on what constitutes an
>acceptable open-source li
Eric -
> 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 agree), I believe we can speak *with
> regard
On Tue, 19 Oct 2004, Dean Anderson wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Oct 2004, Michael Richardson wrote:
>
> > >> Obviously, there is a problem if a patent claims to invent
> > >> something commonplace such as 'xml', and grants its use only for
> > >> the purpose of IETF standards or a specific stan
On Oct 19, 2004, at 10:49 PM, Paul Vixie wrote:
i think that the ensuing ietf-isoc-malamud hairball should pay for IPR
searches of all final-drafts
In my experience, such searches, to be of any use, require the services
of an intelligent (i.e. expensive) person, ideally with domain
expertise, are
somebody asked me...
> What is your position on these issues then?
i think that anyone who comments on the mailing list, or in WG meeting
minutes, or as a draft author, should have to disclose any relevant IPR
of which they are then aware or of which they become subsequently aware,
whether or not
Paul Vixie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>mr. raymond's claims of representation don't
> help me and might, by creating misunderstanding amongst the consumers of
> "open source" software, hurt me.
Let's put an end to these far-reaching interpretations of
"representation", which
I'll try to refrain from further replies, as the sergeant-at-arms
already declared this a bit out of scope..
On Mon, 18 Oct 2004, Michael Richardson wrote:
> Eric> What happens when I want to re-use (say) a hash function from
> Eric> a library with patent coverage and an area-of-applicati
Wow...
> > I hate it when elected politicans presume to speak for me.
> I will not
> > sit quietly and let self-appointed individuals try the
> same. *DO NOT*
> > tell me to my face that you are negotiating on my behalf or
> even just
> > for 95% of the other people who write or have
On Mon, 18 Oct 2004, Michael Richardson wrote:
> >> Obviously, there is a problem if a patent claims to invent
> >> something commonplace such as 'xml', and grants its use only for
> >> the purpose of IETF standards or a specific standard. But I'm
> >> not sure if I recall somethi
On Tue, 19 Oct 2004, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> Dean Anderson 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-sourc
> 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 frequently claim to speak for us.
in particular
Someone wrote me privately:
] For an open source guy he
] has some pretty funny legal language:
]
] http://www.catb.org/~esr/copying.html
That page includes this restriction:
} You may not make or redistribute static copies (whether print or
} online)
>
> 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 enforce the copyright and possibly even patent l
Dean Anderson 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 enforce the copyright and possibl
> From: "Eric S. Raymond" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> There's been no plebiscite, of course. However, web content analyses
> and surveys of the licenses used at sites like SourceForge and ibiblio
> paint a pretty consistent picture of who developers consider the authorities
> on licensing and IPR best
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> "Eric" == Eric S Raymond <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> isomorphic > to the "commercial/noncommercial" problem. The
>> really nasty cases are > near service libraries.
>>
>> Maybe you should spell this out.
>>
>> For example, ser
Pekka Savola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Think harder. The problem with area-of-application rules is isomorphic
> > to the "commercial/noncommercial" problem. The really nasty cases are
> > near service libraries.
>
> Maybe you should spell this out.
>
> For example, service libraries need not be
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. if ietf were to change its policies
shogunx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > In fact, the *only* way to do open source is without this distinction.
> >
> > I actually wish it were otherwise, but my wishes have no effect on the
> > logic of the situation.
>
> Why do you say that?
Because trying to make a distinction between "commercial" and
Vernon Schryver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > 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 politic
Please remember that IETF adheres to a consensus process, which is not a
democratic process. There is no representation by delegation but
representation by competence. Because at the end of the day one does not
count votes but serious opponents. The target is to present a solution non
one will
Vernon Schryver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> 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 polit
> 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 quietl
> 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
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 d
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
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 by
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
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
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 sev
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 noncommercia
> ... 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
Beijnum; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Shuffle those deck chairs!
>
> There are very good arguments as to why "intellectual property" and
> derivatives should be avoided as a term. One should talk
> instead about
> patents, copyrights and trademark
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 a
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
> > b
> 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
> 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 drafti
There are very good arguments as to why "intellectual property" and
derivatives should be avoided as a term. One should talk instead about
patents, copyrights and trademarks instead. The issues represented by the
three are substantially different among the three and they can't be
successfully
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 att
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 thir
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
> 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
> "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) i
for an example.
Brian
> -Original Message-
> From: RL 'Bob' Morgan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, October 15, 2004 1:28 PM
> To: Brian Rosen
> Cc: IETF
> Subject: RE: Shuffle those deck chairs!
>
>
> On Fri, 15 Oct 2004, Brian Rosen 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.
Scott
On 15 Oct 2004, Paul Vixie wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] ("Eric S. Raymond") writes:
>
> > ...
> > The open-s
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:
http://www.apache.org/licens
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,
[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 ad
> Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2004 10:56 PM
> To: Sam Hartman
> Cc: Florian Weimer; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Shuffle those deck chairs!
>
> Sam Hartman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > I think it would be wonderful if the free software community could
> > come
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
re
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 wit
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 technica
1 - 100 of 143 matches
Mail list logo
