Subject: IPR Re: IETF 54 calendar (fwd)

From: Alexandre Dulaunoy <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 17:07:57 +0200 (CEST)

On Wed, 29 May 2002, Melinda Shore wrote:

> At 11:03 AM 5/29/02 +0200, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> >I think it's pretty clear. That doesn't mean it doesn't
> >cause confusion, because it certainly does. There is a strong
> >case for an informational document and presentation to try to
> >get rid of the confusion, but that doesn't need a meeting or a WG.
>
> I really think that it depends on your definition of "pretty
> clear."  Aside from situations in which some competing technologies
> are encumbered and some are not, we're now finding ourselves in
> situations where all of the proposed technologies are encumbered
> but have different licensing terms.  I think that a new informational
> document would benefit a great deal from real-time discussion, etc.,
> if for no other reason to see which questions are raised.  A Friday
> meeting seems to me to be a rather small one-time cost for getting
> more clarity around the issue.
>
> Melinda

Yes, a lot of discussion will come about "IPR".

For example, the case of VRRP is not really solved ;-).

Cisco says that a RAND (reasonable and non-discriminatory) is available.
But for example, for the Free Software developers (for example : released
under the GNU General Public License) need a RF (Royalty-free license).
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#RAND

We have contacted Cisco Inc. several time about that without getting any
feedback regarding the RF license. http://www.ael.be/node.php?id=52

I think a method for Free Software developers should be created inside
the IETF (because implementations of draft/RFC are often Free Software).
Also a correct terminology should be in place. (RF / RAND / type of Licensing...)

What do you think about that ?

Thanks

adulau

---

From: "Tony Hain" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 12:36:39 -0700

> What do you think about that ?

As I recall, RAND was explicitly selected over RF because there are and
will be technologies that are interesting to incorporate in a
system-wide standard approach, and forcing RF terms would automatically
exclude those. There is enough of a bias in the participants toward RF
when available, that explicit language requiring it adds no value and in
some cases actually subtracts value from the process of achieving
consensus.

If what you are asking for is that for every proposal / i-d that shows
up in the IETF, the IPR holder is automatically required to provide an
RF license, you really don't understand the reason people bother with
patents to begin with.

Tony

---

From: "Gary E. Miller" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 13:06:37 -0700 (PDT)

Yo Tony!

> RF license, you really don't understand the reason people bother with

Well then the w3.org does not either.  Here is an excerpt from their
patent policy:

"1. Licensing Goals for W3C Recommendations

In order to promote the widest adoption of Web standards, W3C seeks
to issue Recommendations that can be implemented on a Royalty-Free
(RF) basis. Under this policy, W3C will not approve a Recommendation
if it is aware that Essential Claims exist which are not available on
Royalty-Free terms."

Full text at: http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-patent-policy-20020226/

RGDS
GARY
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary E. Miller Rellim 20340 Empire Blvd, Suite E-3, Bend, OR 97701
	[email-masked]  Tel:+1(541)382-8588 Fax: +1(541)382-8676

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 17:04:32 -0400

> RF license, you really don't understand the reason people bother with

doesn't follow.  it's entirely possible to understand why people bother 
with patents and still believe that IETF shouldn't support their use to
prevent free implementation of a standard.

Keith

---

From: Marshall Rose <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 14:11:11 -0700

> RF license, you really don't understand the reason people bother with

tony - i don't find your last paragraph to be particularly "helpful".  a reasoned argument can be made that patents and community standards are incompatible.  a rigorous study of the US patent system indicates that the founders introduced the system in order to serve the public good, by encouraging innovation, by granting limited monopolies on inventions. it is unclear if that system is particularly compatible with community-based approaches such as the IETF where, by definition, the output is not monopolized.

with respect to your first paragraph, i note that if technology companies see value in participating in the standards process, then perhaps it is not unreasonable to suggest that the IETF consider only RF stuff, and then let the various IPR stakeholders decide whether the trade-off is worth it... in other words, if someone has some whizbang technology, and if they want the imprimatur of a community such as the IETF, then they can decide for themselves whether to RF it. if not, they are perfectly free to pursue a proprietary market strategy.

for myself, i take no position on the merits of the two kinds of licensing; rather, i merely note that the issue is somewhat more subtle than first glance.

/mtr

---

From: "Tony Hain" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 15:40:55 -0700

Marshall Rose wrote:
> tony - i don't find your last paragraph to be particularly
> "helpful".  a reasoned argument can be made that patents and
> community standards are incompatible.  a rigorous study of
> the US patent system indicates that the founders introduced
> the system in order to serve the public good, by encouraging
> innovation, by granting limited monopolies on inventions. it
> is unclear if that system is particularly compatible with
> community-based approaches such as the IETF where, by
> definition, the output is not monopolized.

Clearly from the responses I didn't make my point in that last
paragraph. The original note mentioned VRRP specifically, and in that
case the IPR holder didn't bring the proposal to the IETF. The way I
read that note, the Free Software community believes that the IPR holder
should be required to provide RF terms when someone proposes a similar
technology for standardization.

>
> with respect to your first paragraph, i note that if
> technology companies see value in participating in the
> standards process, then perhaps it is not unreasonable to
> suggest that the IETF consider only RF stuff, and then let
> the various IPR stakeholders decide whether the trade-off is
> worth it... in other words, if someone has some whizbang
> technology, and if they want the imprimatur of a community
> such as the IETF, then they can decide for themselves whether
> to RF it. if not, they are perfectly free to pursue a
> proprietary market strategy.

In general I agree for the case where the IPR holder brings the
technology for standardization. In the case where a proposal shows up
which the group thinks is technically the right direction, but a 3rd
party holds IPR, we can't require RF, but can require the WG demonstrate
that RAND is functional.

>
> for myself, i take no position on the merits of the two kinds
> of licensing; rather, i merely note that the issue is
> somewhat more subtle than first glance.

Subtle enough that a quick paragraph is easily misread. :)

Tony

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 21:49:25 -0400

> technology for standardization.

Be very careful here - asserting that there is one "the Free Software
community" that agrees on ANYTHING is hazardous.  Fortunately for our
collective sanity, most of the community seems to be in either the GPL camp or
the BSD/X11 camp, and both of those groups would agree on "royalty-free" as a
requirement. 

I have to agree with the "RF" requirement on more pragmatic grounds - if we
want to move something along the Standard track, we're saying "This is the way
it should be done".  And the reality is that a monoculture is a Very Bad Thing
for all the usual diversity reasons.  However, this implies that there will be
platforms with marginal support, where most of what's being done is "for free"
by hobbyists and owners/users (see the Linux world several years ago for an
example).  

Letting something onto the Standards track without a RF clause is basically
saying "Your checkbook must be at least <license fee> tall to ride this
function of the Internet".  And we don't want to do that.

Does anybody know if it's possible to write a license for basic technology
(the algorithms themselves, not a particular source implementation) such
that code written to implement it can be released under the BSD or GPL
licenses, as the implementor sees fit?

Do we, as the IETF, want to say "must be *either* BSD-ish or GPL-ish
licensed", or do we want to say "must be compatible with both styles",
or do we want to do a semantic tap-dance and use verbiage that doesn't
actually *reference* either by name, but is acceptable to either/both
camps? I know that the GNU people are more than happy to discuss in
great detail exactly how a specific license is or isn't compatible
with their agenda and license, and I'm sure a spokesperson can be found
for the BSD-style camp as well...

(And as usual, IANAL, I just happen to have opinions on what I perceive
as a desirable goal)

-- 
				Valdis Kletnieks
				Computer Systems Senior Engineer
				Virginia Tech

---

From: Rob Lanphier <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 13:07:58 -0700 (Pacific Daylight Time)

> RF license, you really don't understand the reason people bother with

That makes about as much sense as saying:
"If what you are asking for is that for every passenger that gets on an
airplane, the passenger is automatically required to surrender any weapons
they may have, you really don't understand the reason people bother with
weapons to begin with."

The debate is already tricky enough without falsely accusing the other
side of naivety.  They often know *exactly* why people bother with
patents, but may not share the same goals.

In general, the W3C seems to be on the right track on this issue, though
it continues to be a very painful process, and is by no means complete.

See this page for more details:
http://www.w3.org/2001/ppwg/

Rob