Subject: [Fwd: I-D Action:draft-carpenter-ipr-patent-frswds-00.txt]

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 14:55:05 +1300

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: I-D Action:draft-carpenter-ipr-patent-frswds-00.txt
Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2007 21:20:02 -0400
From: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked]

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.

	Title           : Considering availability of free software when evaluating Draft Standards
	Author(s)       : B. Carpenter
	Filename        : draft-carpenter-ipr-patent-frswds-00.txt
	Pages           : 7
	Date            : 2007-10-28

This draft responds to a request for input by the IPR WG Chair.  It
proposes that the IETF's criteria for evaluating Draft Standard
specifications should include the availability of free software.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-carpenter-ipr-patent-frswds-00.txt

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

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2007 22:44:10 -0400

This proposal, which requires that there be a free implementation of 
an RFC for advancement to Draft Standard seems wrong to me.

I certainly like to see free implementations of RFFCs.
I also like to see actual usage of RFCs.
And, as the document says, the DS bar is partly intended to help us 
judge whether the patents are proving to be a problem.
But the absence of free implementations does not tell us much of anything.

(Side note: This whole discussion only makes sense if we ignore the 
fact that very few documents are being advanced anyway. )

It seems to me that multiple apparently independent commercial 
implementations are just as valid an indication as a free 
implementations.  And since the IETF is not in a position to itself 
produce implementations (free or otherwise) it does not seem 
appropriate for advancement to be conditioned on one kind of 
implementation.  As I see it, it is not the IETF's business to 
encourage any particular kind of implementation.

Yours,
Joel M. Halpern

At 09:55 PM 10/28/2007, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>Content-Type: text/plain
>Content-ID: <2007-10-28211943.I-D\@ietf.org>
>
>
>
>

---

From: "Frank Ellermann" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 08:15:24 +0100

> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-carpenter-ipr-patent-frswds-00.txt

My first impression was that we don't need a new Charter for this one, and
can simply proceed to Last Call and publish. 

 Frank

---

From: Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 10:23:28 +0100

>> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-carpenter-ipr-patent-frswds-00.txt

I support that document.

> can simply proceed to Last Call and publish. 

That's my impression as well.

/Simon

---

From: "Powers Chuck-RXCP20" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 10:26:50 -0400

Would this also mean that a standard for which there is substantive
support, but which no one has bothered to implement in a 'free' manner,
could not advance, until someone got around to implementing one? I would
agree with Joel, that having two independently developed implementations
should be adequate for a standard to move forward, regardless of whether
or not one of the implementations can be classified as 'free', which
AFAIK has no broadly agreed-to definition, anyway. 

Since the IETF (like any wise standards group) realizes that it is not
in a position to determine if a particular patent is valid or
enforceable (something that can really only be decided in a court of
law), it makes sense that the IETF should also not be in the business of
determining the 'openness' or 'freeness' of a particular protocol
implementation, something that it is equally unsuited to do. Instead,
the IETF should just be in the business of determining if the minimum
number of required implementations interoperate, per the specification,
and leave the rest to be decided in industry based on the success of the
standard. If there are 'free' implementations, great, even better. But
that should not be made a requirement for advancing an RFC along the
standards track.

The IETF has been highly successful using this approach, and it seems
reckless to me for a serious standards development group to make such
change simply 'because'. If an IETF RFC cannot become successful because
of a lack of 'free' implementations (a claim for which I have never seen
any empirical evidence), then that will be sorted out in industry, as it
should be. 

Regards,

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joel M. Halpern [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2007 9:44 PM
> To: IPR WG
> Subject: Re: [Fwd: I-D 
> Action:draft-carpenter-ipr-patent-frswds-00.txt]
> 
> 
> >http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-carpenter-ipr-paten
t-frswds-0
>0.txt

---

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 15:51:10 +0100

On Mon, Oct 29, 2007 at 10:26:50AM -0400,
 Powers Chuck-RXCP20 <[email-masked]> wrote 
 a message of 118 lines which said:

> 'free', which AFAIK has no broadly agreed-to definition, anyway.

This is not true. While there are several definitions of free software
(http://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines,
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html,
http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php), they all yield the
same practical result. I have never seen a licence which was free
according to some definitions and not against others.

[Do note it is not the same for "free standards" for which the current
definitions vary wildly in their results.]

---

From: Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 16:21:17 +0100

> definitions vary wildly in their results.]

Seconded.

A minor concern with draft-carpenter-ipr-patent-frswds-00 is that it
implies that my draft discuss or even defines what "free" software is.
It does not.  This confuses the issue, and it seems to have already led
people unfamiliar with the territory astray.

/Simon

---

From: Scott Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 11:22:16 -0400

I like the idea of taking so-called "free" software issues into
consideration.  I am completely against specific requirements for all
the reasons listed so far.  Also, I worry about late definition of the
term "free".  It's likely that "free" will never be defined in our
context, so using it here is giving in to the groupthink of those who
make the term a slogan.  We shouldn't use terms unless we know what we
mean.  (It's been hard enough fighting against the idea that IETF
standards aren't "free").  Instead, do what Simon did to some extent:
don't define it, just name specific issues.

How about:

   A specification from which at least two independent and
   interoperable implementations from different code bases have been
   developed, and for which sufficient successful operational
   experience has been obtained, may be elevated to the "Draft
   Standard" level.  Issues with general deployability should be taken
   into consideration, including issues of licensing terms associated
   with those implementations.

?  Something like that anyway -- the goal is to somehow get rid of the
term "free" and don't make anything new a MUST.

In general the IETF has to fight against having too many rules.  Most
of our problems are not with process, and yet we try to fix them by
adding detail to process.

swb

---

From: "Powers Chuck-RXCP20" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 13:32:37 -0400

I think Scott's  proposed language (and intent) is preferably to the
original.

Regards,

Chuck 

> From: Scott Brim [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Monday, October 29, 2007 10:22 AM
> To: IPR WG
> Subject: RE: [Fwd: I-D 
> I like the idea of taking so-called "free" software issues 
> into consideration.  I am completely against specific 
> requirements for all the reasons listed so far.  Also, I 
> worry about late definition of the term "free".  It's likely 
> that "free" will never be defined in our context, so using it 
> here is giving in to the groupthink of those who make the 
> term a slogan.  We shouldn't use terms unless we know what we 
> mean.  (It's been hard enough fighting against the idea that 
> IETF standards aren't "free").  Instead, do what Simon did to 
> some extent: don't define it, just name specific issues.
> 
> How about:
> 
> ?  Something like that anyway -- the goal is to somehow get 
> rid of the term "free" and don't make anything new a MUST.
> 
> In general the IETF has to fight against having too many 
> rules.  Most of our problems are not with process, and yet we 
> try to fix them by adding detail to process.
> 
> swb
>

---

From: Ted Hardie <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 10:42:30 -0700

>> according to some definitions and not against others.

If I give you software at no cost to you, but without giving you any
source code, that is "free software" (often called "as in beer") but
not "free software" according to other definitions.  Microsoft's Internet
Explorer and Apple's Safari web browser are both "free software" in
that there is no charge for them.  I have not seen either company
release the source code.

Brian's proposed text is:

 A specification from which at least two independent and  interoperable
      implementations from different code bases have been developed, of
      which at least one is available as free software, and
      for which sufficient successful operational experience has been
      obtained, may be elevated to the "Draft Standard" level.

Though the document mentions open source licenses as well
as "free software", the text given is ambiguous as to whether
what is required is "free as in beer" or "open source" and,
if the latter, which licenses count.  There being more than
one on-going discussion of "which should count"
(see the recent decision to dual license Netbeans into the
GPLv2 as well as CDDL as one tiny example), this later is not a simple
question.

I continue to believe that the best way forward is to start with how-tos like
Simon's.  If you make something worthwhile easy, you rarely have to make
it mandatory.

Just my personal opinion,
				Ted

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 16:00:24 +1300

> Simon's.  If you make something worthwhile easy, you rarely have to make

I certainly agree with working on Simon's draft. I wanted to explore if
there is a minimal process step that could also gain consensus. If there
isn't, we're done (and there's certainly no point in exploring more
radical process changes).

> Just my personal opinion,

Ditto, of course.

     Brian

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 15:51:00 +1300

> people unfamiliar with the territory astray.

Yes, you explicitly say you *don't* define it. If I update my draft,
I will adjust the wording to make that clear.

    Brian

---

From: "TS Glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 05:14:49 -0700

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Brian E Carpenter" <[email-masked]>
To: "Simon Josefsson" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Powers Chuck-RXCP20" <[email-masked]>; "IPR WG" 
<[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, October 29, 2007 7:51 PM
Subject: Re: [Fwd: I-D Action:draft-carpenter-ipr-patent-frswds-00.txt]

>>>  Powers Chuck-RXCP20 <[email-masked]> wrote a message of 118 
>>> lines which said:
>>>

Generally doesnt the word "Free" simply mean "without"... and its context 
specific. i.e. "Without Cost" or "Without Restraint" ??? and isnt that 
pretty much universally true everywhere?

---

From: "TS Glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 05:25:20 -0700

Suggested replacement statement included below...

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Brian E Carpenter" <[email-masked]>
To: "Ted Hardie" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Simon Josefsson" <[email-masked]>; "Powers Chuck-RXCP20"
<[email-masked]>; "IPR WG" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, October 29, 2007 8:00 PM
Subject: Re: [Fwd: I-D Action:draft-carpenter-ipr-patent-frswds-00.txt]

>> that there is no charge for them.  I have not seen either company

This is true - and its based on their (those Licensor's) limiting the scope 
of 'free' relative to their licenses...

>>       obtained, may be elevated to the "Draft Standard" level.

So what then is the difference say in the code-base split say from Debian to
Redhat... they are BOTH Linux and can be claimed to be derivatives of the
same code-source ultimately... Wouldnt it be better to mandate that the
Implementations have to come from different Operating Environment rather
than allowing just one OS to create an IETF Standard?

PROPOSED TEXT:
-----------------------
       A specification from which at least two independent and 
interoperable
       implementations from different OS Operating Environment's have been 
developed, and
       for which sufficient successful operational experience has been
       obtained, may be elevated to the "Draft Standard" level.

And WHY does the FREE schtick have to be in the operating framework. If 
submitters want to let them assign "FREE USE" rights as part of the 
submission but mandating that at least one implementation MUST be "Free 
Software" means that the term "Free" must be defined out to the same levels 
as  a normal use-license's use statement.