Subject: Re: IPR at IETF 54

From: "John Stracke" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 17:43:29 -0400

>         one that's O(logN) with a non-RF license
>and
>         one that's O(NlogN) with an RF license
>
>i probably wouldn't need to think very hard to go with the
>latter. simply because we'll see a lot more community good...

Right.  Standards exist so that we can get interoperability; expensive 
licenses limit interoperability.

/==============================================================\
|John Stracke                    |Principal Engineer           |
[email-masked]   |Incentive Systems, Inc.      |
|http://www.incentivesystems.com |My opinions are my own.      |
|==============================================================|
|"The Empire has a tyrannical and repressive government." "What|
|form of government is that?" "A tautology."                   |
\==============================================================/

---

From: Lloyd Wood <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 12:43:16 +0100 (BST)

> licenses limit interoperability.

No, expensive licenses place an upper bound on the number of
interoperable implementations.

Licenses can ensure interoperability of implementations, by backing
technical with legal requirements.

Interoperability can be achieved without standards (e.g. Samba,
StarOffice), but it's a lot more work.

L.

<[email-masked]>PGP<http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/L.Wood/>