Subject: Re: DNSEXT Minutes @ IETF-63 [Software Patent issues denied discussion]

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2005 13:47:40 -0700

> [Note:  Not very long ago, I argued persuasively to a large and broad
> movement within the IETF seeking to have the IETF adopt an anti-patent
> position. 

my memory is slipping worse that I thought.

i don't recall seeing evidence of the community's being persuaded.

-- 
 
   d/

  Dave Crocker
  Brandenburg InternetWorking
  +1.408.246.8253
  dcrocker  a t ...
  WE'VE MOVED to:  www.bbiw.net

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: "william(at)elan.net" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2005 14:14:04 -0700 (PDT)

> i don't recall seeing evidence of the community's being persuaded.

Neverheless if I understand it, it has always been a position of IETF
to consider patented technology as being less preferable then patented
for standardization (ok, it also has a lot to do with kind of licese
patened technology has and if its available to everyone's use or not)
and that in case standardization of certain patented technology is
being considered IETF should look at if alternative to it that is
non-patented is available.

What Dean wrote makes lots of sense to me, so I primarily agree with
him, except for his typical dnsext chair bashing - I'm not sure there
is really a case there that chair is blocking discussion. I do agree
that some list members there don't like the discussion of patents, but
it appeared to be individual particupants (also it was hard to gauge
if those individual participants did not like discussions of mentioned
patent issues with dns extensions in general or if they did not like 
having discussions with Dean [on any topic] in particular).

-- 
William Leibzon
Elan Networks
[email-masked]

---

From: Dean Anderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2005 18:44:38 -0400 (EDT)

Mr Crocker. I know you'd rather not give credit to anyone you disagree
with, which I suppose leaves only a preference to plagarize the work of
others and give undue credit to someone else, say, Vixie [ala the SPF/RMX
plagarism in which Vixie was improperly credited for the idea and the real
contributors and the originator of the idea were improperly removed***].  
However:

Since we [the anti-software-patent community -- and the LPF President is
an acknowledged leader of that community] mostly collectively dropped the
demand for no patents in lieu of a much more pragmatic and cooperative
view, a view that I originated and promoted, I think I can say they were
persuaded.

Of course, that must be very jarring to your world in which I represent no
one else's view, and have no valid point of view on any subject with which
you disagree.  And indeed, I would be unsurprised if your world does not
admit that I have a valid point of view even on any subject on which we
_do_ happen to agree.  I hope I don't rattle your world too much. Or
perhaps in your world, the IETF has already adopted a strict no-patent
policy. I couldn't tell. How'd that no-patent policy work out in your
world?  Did it alienate any pro-patent companies?

		--Dean

*** The SPF/RMX issue is just one example of professional dishonesty.  
Professional dishonesty is very much like academic dishonesty.  The IETF
is supposed to be a professional organization, an activity of The Internet
Society, which is a professional organization.  Improper attribution of
statements or plagarism, theft of ideas, etc in a referee'd paper would
not be acceptable in any professional or scientific journal. Plagarism,
theft of ideas, fabrication of statements, etc is unacceptable, under the
category of professional dishonesty. Particularly in official interactions
by the leadership of the IETF.  Academic dishonesty is grounds for
expulsion from higher educational institutions. Yet, professional
dishonesty at the IETF is grounds for...exactly nothing. It is hard to
consider the IETF a professional organization since it adheres to no
professional standards.  We shouldn't forget this, but it isn't my focus
at the moment. Someday, this issue should be addressed.

-- 
Av8 Internet   Prepared to pay a premium for better service?
www.av8.net         faster, more reliable, better service
617 344 9000