Re: Shuffle those deck chairs!

Dean Anderson <dean@av8.com> Tue, 19 October 2004 01:18 UTC

Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA14119; Mon, 18 Oct 2004 21:18:14 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CJipo-00072g-Q9; Mon, 18 Oct 2004 21:30:47 -0400
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CJiJ4-00026c-Kl; Mon, 18 Oct 2004 20:56:54 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CJi14-0007I2-HL for ietf@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 18 Oct 2004 20:38:18 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA11034 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 18 Oct 2004 20:38:12 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from cirrus.av8.net ([130.105.36.66]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CJiD0-00068w-FT for ietf@ietf.org; Mon, 18 Oct 2004 20:50:43 -0400
Received: from antigua.nuspex.com (citation2.av8.net [130.105.19.2]) (authenticated bits=0) by cirrus.av8.net (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i9J0bVFA032342 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO); Mon, 18 Oct 2004 20:37:32 -0400
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 20:37:30 -0400
From: Dean Anderson <dean@av8.com>
X-X-Sender: dean@citation2.av8.net
To: Paul Vixie <paul@vix.com>
In-Reply-To: <20041015213405.8599B13E15@sa.vix.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0410182003410.20099-100000@citation2.av8.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"
X-Spam-Score: 2.7 (++)
X-Scan-Signature: 00e94c813bef7832af255170dca19e36
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Shuffle those deck chairs!
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
X-Spam-Score: 2.7 (++)
X-Scan-Signature: d185fa790257f526fedfd5d01ed9c976

On Fri, 15 Oct 2004, Paul Vixie wrote:

> > ...  notwithstanding, how can a specification be considered a standard
> > if over half of the operators on the planet refuse to deploy it
> > because of patent/licence issues.
> 
> i can't understand why this matters.  if ietf were to change its policies
> so that only "open technology" was allowed in the standards, there would
> still be patent fights (both from submarines and ships-in-the-night).

Well, given that Mr. Vixie told me that he is a supporter of software
patents, and that we know he only supports BSD-style copyrights which can
be taken closed source, and is someone who has claimed trademarks on other
peoples software, it is more obvious why he doesn't understand 'why it
matters'.

So I'll explain why it matters.

There is a pro-patent/closed-source point of view, and there is an
anti-patent/open-source point of view. These sides are not difficult to
understand.  But they take some effort to reconcile into cooperation on
standards. Why should they be reconciled? Because there are a lot of
constituencies in the IETF: There are many large, closed-source,
pro-patent vendors that we want to have participate in the IETF. There are
also many groups that implementing anti-patent, open-source technology
under a variety of copyrights.  The particulars of the copyright vary from
group to group, and reflect the goals and ideals of each group. There is
no consensus on the "one-great-copyright", even though each group probably
thinks theirs is best.

In order to obtain benefits of standardization and interoperablilty, the
IETF (and other standards organizations) have made some compromises:  
Patent claims must be disclosed early, and there is no requirement that
implementation of protocols be made free or open-source. There is no
obstacle to open-source either. Each working group is able to evaluate and
select technology based on many factors, including whether the technology
is subject to patents.  However, patents need not stand in the way of
standardization if the working group decides to adopt the technology. 

Patents were a significant obstacle for the IETF-MX working group. They
were not an obstacle for certain PPP RFCs, and perhaps other RFCs.  The 
ITU has similar policies and some ITU standards are subject to patents. 
Usually, the assurance of fair and universal licensing was an important 
consideration.

It is important not to adopt a knee-jerk anti-patent position.  That this
is important can be seen:  It is not just pro-patent organizations that
may obtain patents.  Anti-patent organizations may find it necessary to
patent technology in order to ensure that the technology remains free.  
Like many other areas, knee-jerk, absolutist responses are wrong, and a
more nuanced approach is necessary.

Similarly, Open-Source organizations such as GNU and others depend on the
copyright law to keep open-source remaining open.  If the copyright law
were weakened, then GPL code would be vulnerable to being stolen and made
closed.  So it is important that copyright remain.  

When the open-source tide really turns, and the best quality source code
and technology is free, then it will be subject to theft of the sort where
it is made improperly not-free.  Then it will be the open-source community
that is trying to enforce the copyright and possibly even patent law. That
is why alterations must be careful.

However, the tide hasn't yet turned. But even after the tide does turn
there will still be many players who will still pursue closed-source,
patented solutions. We will still need to accomodate them for sometime
even as a minority.  So, the IETF will probably be the last organization
to be purely open-source.

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




_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf