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

From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2005 17:22:35 -0400

In message <[email-masked]>, "william(at)elan
.net" writes:
>
>On Thu, 8 Sep 2005, Dave Crocker wrote:
>
>>> [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.

It wasn't -- he's wrong.
>
>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.
>

I didn't see the original note -- if it was from whom I think it was, 
my killfile took care of that -- but for a more authoritative 
description of the situation, see the first two paragraphs of Section 2 
of RFC 3669.

Wearing my IPR WG hat and citing a product of that WG...

		--Steven M. Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb

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

---

From: Dean Anderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2005 19:12:10 -0400 (EDT)

> non-patented is available.

The IETF position has gone from what might be described as studious
neutrality (ie you may consider things such as licensing terms) to a
definite preference for non-encumbrance. (Section 8 of RFC 3979):

8.  Evaluating Alternative Technologies in IETF Working Groups

   In general, IETF working groups prefer technologies with no known IPR
   claims or, for technologies with claims against them, an offer of
   royalty-free licensing.  

I think many people at the IETF have no-IPR preferences, but it wasn't
written explicitly as a policy anywhere that I know of prior to RFC3979

> 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

Olaf Kolkman (WG co-chair) said:  

>Message-Id: <[email-masked]>
[...]
> "Rat Hole Alert" [*]
>
> Please stop this discussion.
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Doesn't get plainer.

		--Dean

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