Re: DNSEXT Minutes @ IETF-63 [Software Patent issues denied discussion]

"Steven M. Bellovin" <smb@cs.columbia.edu> Thu, 08 September 2005 21:22 UTC

Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EDTr8-00036b-13; Thu, 08 Sep 2005 17:22:50 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EDTr5-00036V-W6 for ietf@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 08 Sep 2005 17:22:48 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA18348 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 8 Sep 2005 17:22:45 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from machshav.com ([147.28.0.16]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EDTuW-0000AK-S6 for ietf@ietf.org; Thu, 08 Sep 2005 17:26:22 -0400
Received: by machshav.com (Postfix, from userid 512) id D4DC8FB249; Thu, 8 Sep 2005 17:22:37 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from berkshire.machshav.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by machshav.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD57BFB23E; Thu, 8 Sep 2005 17:22:36 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from cs.columbia.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by berkshire.machshav.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B615D3BFE4B; Thu, 8 Sep 2005 17:22:35 -0400 (EDT)
X-Mailer: exmh version 2.6.3 04/04/2003 with nmh-1.0.4
From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <smb@cs.columbia.edu>
To: "william(at)elan.net" <william@elan.net>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 08 Sep 2005 14:14:04 PDT." <Pine.LNX.4.62.0509081359170.17352@sokol.elan.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2005 17:22:35 -0400
Message-Id: <20050908212235.B615D3BFE4B@berkshire.machshav.com>
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: bb8f917bb6b8da28fc948aeffb74aa17
Cc: namedroppers@ops.ietf.org, dcrocker@bbiw.net, ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: DNSEXT Minutes @ IETF-63 [Software Patent issues denied discussion]
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

In message <Pine.LNX.4.62.0509081359170.17352@sokol.elan.net>, "william(at)elan
.net" writes:
>
>On Thu, 8 Sep 2005, Dave Crocker wrote:
>
>>> [Note:  Not very long ago, I argued persuasively to a large and broad
>>> movement within the IETF seeking to have the IETF adopt an anti-patent
>>> position. 
>>
>> my memory is slipping worse that I thought.
>> i don't recall seeing evidence of the community's being persuaded.

It wasn't -- he's wrong.
>
>Neverheless if I understand it, it has always been a position of IETF
>to consider patented technology as being less preferable then patented
>for standardization (ok, it also has a lot to do with kind of licese
>patened technology has and if its available to everyone's use or not)
>and that in case standardization of certain patented technology is
>being considered IETF should look at if alternative to it that is
>non-patented is available.
>

I didn't see the original note -- if it was from whom I think it was, 
my killfile took care of that -- but for a more authoritative 
description of the situation, see the first two paragraphs of Section 2 
of RFC 3669.

Wearing my IPR WG hat and citing a product of that WG...



		--Steven M. Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb



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