Re: IPR-WG

[Zenaan Harkness <zen@getsystems.com>]

On Fri, 2003-03-21 at 08:11, Scott W Brim wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 20, 2003 08:17:59PM +0200, Pekka Savola allegedly wrote:
> > On Thu, 20 Mar 2003, Allen Lo wrote:
> > > Can you clarify why you feel that way?  Do you feel that the problems
> > > raised on the mailing list and at the SF meeting don't exist?  And why
> > > do you feel further investigation should not be pursued?
> > 
> > One may gather some data by searching for "nortel" under
> > http://www.ietf.org/ipr and looking at the disclosures.
> > 
> > (All seem to be RAND or RAND++ to me..)
> 
> Please give specific evidence that this is a problem?

There are two approaches to "the IPR issue".

One is to do nothing if there are few (none?) current cases where RAND
licensing has limited or excluded Open Source/ Free Software (OSFS)
implementations of a standard. This line of reasoning is currently being
pushed pretty hard by some people on this list.

The alternative is approach is to say, there is at least some evidence
(eg. programmers behind bars) to show that there are dangers mounting
when it comes to coding OSFS software, due, specifically, to IPR issues,
and that, rather than sitting around passively waiting for enough
problems to arise to "justify" doing something about it, that it is in
our best interest to get off our ass and do something now. I am of this
view.

To have a lax IPR policy requires ongoing vigilence in all IETF WGs, all
the time. To "work around" problems after the fact is always more work
than ensuring the problem doesn't occur in the first place (as much as
possible).

To create clear guidelines of prudent (IPR) policy is a sensible thing
to do.

zen


-- 
Mr Zenaan Harkness, Manager, VIDC
Phone: +678 25 151  Fax: +678 25 178  Mobile: +678 45 179
Please respect the confidentiality of this email.

_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg