Subject: Regarding the recent licensing thread

From: Ted Hardie <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 11:27:41 -0700

Some points on the recent licensing postings:

1) This discussion has been unprofessional in the extreme. 
Contributors to this
working group have been accused of failing in a duty they did perform, and
that is rude and unproductive.  The Microsoft IPR filing related to 
callerid was
posted with their first ID, which is exactly what is required.  Those who have
been waiting for such a statement either don't understand the process
or have not been paying attention, and their acting offended about
things now carries no weight.  A refresh with the new name and some
details on coverage is warranted for clarity before the documents go to
the RFC editor,  but  that is a paper trail issue, not substantive.

2) The IETF is an engineering body, and it makes engineering decisions.  It
cares about licensing only as it affects the ability to implement and deploy
a standard.  Religious opinions on the sanctity of specific license texts
belong elsewhere.  The sudden appearance of this as a separate topic
without reference to the engineering choices misses the point of how
the IETF makes these calls:  in the context of the engineering decisions.
Comments based solely on the licensing terms without regard to the engineering
choices they affect *do not speak to the question working groups need to
decide*.   The sudden appearance of new working group participants
after postings inviting them to comment is welcome *if they contribute to
the engineering discussion*.  But if you are here to comment on licensing
outside of the engineering context, you are wasting your electrons.

3) The IETF has published standards with defensive patents many times, and
the use of a reciprocal/royalty free license is a common way for 
contributors to
protect themselves from later claims while still encouraging the creation of
an interoperable, open standard.  Trying to persuade the working group that
something is outside the norm when the IETF IPR page is full of 
contrary examples
insults the intelligence of the group, as well as insulting the 
contributors who
are providing a royalty free license.

4) Armchair lawyers often assume things about patents and licensing which
aren't true.  Get a real lawyer to read things you're concerned about and have
them talk to the contributor's lawyers about things that concern you. 
The creation
of a licensed "libipr" called by other applications may be all it takes to have
licenses with severe restrictions co-exist with royalty free/reciprocal
licenses; this isn't something you can assume one way or the other. 
You really have
to have professionals check. And when you find things that concern 
you, be aware
that this license isn't responsible for ways you may already have 
bound yourself;
  if you signed an agreement with HP Lovecraft that said "I will only 
acknowledge
Chthulhu  in my code", don't blame Microsoft  for requiring an IPR 
notice.  Take it up
with the Elder Gods.

5) Generic rants about patents belong on your national I-hate-the-patent-office
list.  Rants about the IETF's standing decision *against* requiring a 
specific license
or class of licenses belong on the IPR list, but are very likely to 
be redundant
to arguments already made.  Read the archives.

New drafts are now out, waiting for careful review.  I urge the working group
to review them carefully and to focus on how they can be interpreted, coded,
and deployed. We have a lot of work to do.

				Ted Hardie

---

From: "John Glube" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 18:38:30 -0400

In the Canadian justice system of which I have some
familiarity, upon a Supreme Court Justice making his or her
ruling, it is proper for the losing advocate to rise on his
hind legs and say "Thank you My Lord or My Lady," as
applicable. Accordingly, speaking on my behalf as an
individual, who put forward certain concerns relating to
the licensing issue, I say "Thank you Mr. Hardie for your
guidance."

John Glube
Toronto, Canada
 
The FTC Calls For Sender Authentication
http://www.learnsteps4profit.com/dne.html

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.718 / Virus Database: 474 - Release Date: 09/07/2004