<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:dt="uuid:C2F41010-65B3-11d1-A29F-00AA00C14882" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta name="Microsoft Theme 2.00" content="Lawrence Rosen.htm 011">
<meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 11 (filtered medium)">
<!--[if !mso]>
<style>
v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Wingdings;
panose-1:5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:Arial;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:Arial;
color:navy;}
@page Section1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
/* List Definitions */
@list l0
{mso-list-id:1299607964;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:2140994342 -1080664136 67895299 67895301 67895297 67895299 67895301 67895297 67895299 67895301;}
@list l0:level1
{mso-level-start-at:0;
mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:\F0B7;
mso-level-tab-stop:36.0pt;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-font-family:Arial;}
ol
{margin-bottom:0cm;}
ul
{margin-bottom:0cm;}
-->
</style>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang=FR link=blue vlink=purple>
<div class=Section1>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span lang=EN-GB
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>The FSF campaigns against
the current IETF policy and the current policy used in several standard bodies
(notably ISO) who currently accept standards encumbered with patents, only if
they are licensed to everyone who ask for it, under “reasonable” or
“fair” licensing practices. However the acceptable licenses are not
precisely defined (at ISO, patent licensing royalties are still acceptable),
and notably this does not restrict the licensors from requiring a nominative
agreement with each licensee. Such standards do exist in ISO (notably most MPEG
related applications are covered by such restrictive licenses).<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span lang=EN-GB
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span lang=EN-GB
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>However, the FSF
recognizes that, until now, the IETF was more strict about the licensing
conditions, rejecting proposals that included royalties-maker licenses and explicit
personal agreement between the licensor and the licensees (under this scheme,
if it was accepted, nothing would prevent a licensor to start charging yearly royalties
to each licensor for exercising the patented rights.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span lang=EN-GB
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span lang=EN-GB
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>But, the IETF is less
strict about RFCs that are published with “informational” status. We
do have lots of informational RFCs which are still needed and actively used,
sometimes even required (notably those in the BCP series, like the “Netiquette”
which has become a requirement for almost all ISP customers, as part of their
contract, despite they are only informational, and could change at any time after
having been replaced by another RFC replacing the older one with the same BCP
number.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span lang=EN-GB
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span lang=EN-GB
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>I do approve the FSF
campaign: if the IETF publishes a RFC, and even if it’s just
informational and still not a “BCP” recommendation, those RFCs
should really be patent free, or exempt from non-free patents requiring an explicit
license. We have already seen in the past the case where a licensor changed its
policy, and started to claim royaltees for what was initially granted for free
and licensed to any one without charge. We can accept the existence of patents
only as a way to prevent another counter-patent to be reserved by someone else
(but in a free world, such patent is normally not needed, as the copyright assignment
and its legal protection is enough to avoid this).<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span lang=EN-GB
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span lang=EN-GB
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>However, the WIPO is
currently changing the game, trying to merge the two systems of copyrights and
patents into a single one with equal force, forcing those that just want a
protection of their copyright to register it at some national or international
registry to maintain the protection. This is a dangerous evolution, because it
would harm all legitimate authors that have produced valuable works, and
assigned a their copyright on these works, to protect it from claims by others:
they would now have to pay each year some fee to a registry to maintain the
protection on their own work; if they just forget to do that, someone else (richer
than the authors) will apply for a patent registration and will pay
indefinitely the registry to gain and enforce the legal protection.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span lang=EN-GB
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span lang=EN-GB
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>For this reason, we
should only accept patents that are protected with the following minimum bases:<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<ul style='margin-top:0cm' type=disc>
<li class=MsoNormal style='color:navy;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1'><font size=2
color=navy face=Arial><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:
Arial'>Licensed to anyone without condition, and in every country (within
the limitations of the national laws applicable to the licensors, such as
export/import controls, but at the time of proposal or publication of the
standard, such legal restrictions should not exist, and the IETF should
invite all governments to rapidly express their reservations against legal
restrictions in their area, by submitting also a copy to ISO members where
worldwide governments are represented).<o:p></o:p></span></font></li>
<li class=MsoNormal style='color:navy;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1'><font size=2
color=navy face=Arial><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:
Arial'>(If legal restrictions exists and are known to the IETF or to the
standard proposer, they MUST signal them, so that every licencee car
verify if the standard is usable for their intended application).<o:p></o:p></span></font></li>
<li class=MsoNormal style='color:navy;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1'><font size=2
color=navy face=Arial><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:
Arial'>Licensed only in a non-exclusive way (no licensee can claim
ownership or reservation within some domains of application or exercise of
the patent, or reservation in any place, against other competing licensees):
all licensees being treated equally, whatever the time when they first got
their license.<o:p></o:p></span></font></li>
<li class=MsoNormal style='color:navy;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1'><font size=2
color=navy face=Arial><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:
Arial'>Does not require an explicit agreement between each licensor and
licensee.<o:p></o:p></span></font></li>
<li class=MsoNormal style='color:navy;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1'><font size=2
color=navy face=Arial><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:
Arial'>Grants usage and distribution rights to anyone, acting then as a
legal sublicensor: the sublicensor must not forbid the exercise of the
distribution right by its own licensees.<o:p></o:p></span></font></li>
<li class=MsoNormal style='color:navy;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1'><font size=2
color=navy face=Arial><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:
Arial'>Being granted without limitation of time, including the
distribution right (so that new licensees can always come and apply the
same terms).<o:p></o:p></span></font></li>
<li class=MsoNormal style='color:navy;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1'><font size=2
color=navy face=Arial><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:
Arial'>Offers a warranty (signed by the patent owner) to licensors that
the patent does not violate any other patent or copyright or author’s
rights.<o:p></o:p></span></font></li>
<li class=MsoNormal style='color:navy;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1'><font size=2
color=navy face=Arial><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:
Arial'>Making this warranty permanent too, and without requesting any charge
to pay by the licensees and distributors (including the IETF).<o:p></o:p></span></font></li>
<li class=MsoNormal style='color:navy;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1'><font size=2
color=navy face=Arial><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:
Arial'>Offer a signed warranty of indemnification of licensees and of the
IETF if the patent licensor has violated these rights.<o:p></o:p></span></font></li>
<li class=MsoNormal style='color:navy;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1'><font size=2
color=navy face=Arial><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:
Arial'>Stating contractually that no further charges will be requested to
all licensees in the future by the patent owner.<o:p></o:p></span></font></li>
</ul>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span lang=EN-GB
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>With all these conditions,
patents are in fact not needed. We much prefer the system of copyrights which
is much simpler to protect open and free technologies.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span lang=EN-GB
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span lang=EN-GB
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>If needed, all RFCs
published by the IETF should first pass a long enough transitory period where
the RFC is published but with strong notice that it is not approved, so that
the only rile of the publication is to verify that the RFC does not violate any
rights. After this time has elapsed (2-3 years after first publication?) during
which the other patent owners have had the possibility to exercise their rights,
the RFC could be only be in an informational state, becoming a recommendation
later.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<ul style='margin-top:0cm' type=disc>
<li class=MsoNormal style='color:navy;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1'><font size=2
color=navy face=Arial><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:
Arial'>The IETF should also make some efforts to propose alternatives to
every published standard, so that at least one replacement technology is
also published with the same status, allowing applications to implement
several of them, and possibly turning down rapidly, with less efforts, any
technology for which a patent becomes applicable. The BCP standard track
should list the alternative technologies, and not promote only one.<o:p></o:p></span></font></li>
<li class=MsoNormal style='color:navy;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1'><font size=2
color=navy face=Arial><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:
Arial'>In addition all standard should support optional additions and a
framework for making these options interoperable with other implementations
of the standard that don’t have this option. This will ease the
replacement of one technology by another if there is any problem with a
technologies that was informally considered ”the best” one
(but appears to be now encumbered by costly patent claims). In fact this
should be the role of standards: not promoting a single technology, but
providing this free framework for interoperability. The “requirements”
in a standard should be only about interoperability, not about an exclusive
implementation solution.<o:p></o:p></span></font></li>
<li class=MsoNormal style='color:navy;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1'><font size=2
color=navy face=Arial><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:
Arial'>So supporting the extensibility should be a requirement for
conformance. If a “standard” does not support extensibility,
it should be deprecated or another newer standard should be created rapidly
as an accepted alternative, within which the currently deprecated standard
would just become a particular implementation.<o:p></o:p></span></font></li>
</ul>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span lang=EN-GB
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<div style='border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 4.0pt'>
<div>
<div class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><font size=3
face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>
<hr size=2 width="100%" align=center tabindex=-1>
</span></font></div>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><font size=2 face=Tahoma><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Tahoma;font-weight:bold'>De :</span></font></b><font size=2
face=Tahoma><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma'> Lawrence Rosen
[mailto:lrosen@rosenlaw.com] <br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>Envoyé :</span></b> mercredi 24 octobre
2007 04:51<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>À :</span></b> ietf@ietf.org<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>Cc :</span></b>
license-discuss@opensource.org<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>Objet :</span></b> Re: A priori IPR choices</span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial'>To: IETF list<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial'>These are statements from FSF about the issue we've
been discussing at <a href="mailto:ietf@ietf.org">ietf@ietf.org</a>. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial'><a
href="http://www.fsf.org/campaigns/software-patents/draft-housley-tls-authz-extns.html">http://www.fsf.org/campaigns/software-patents/draft-housley-tls-authz-extns.html</a>
<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial'>and<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial'><a
href="http://www.fsf.org/news/oppose-tls-authz-standard.html">http://www.fsf.org/news/oppose-tls-authz-standard.html</a>
<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial'>The GPL does not have problems with most IETF
specifications, only those that are encumbered by non-free patents. This is an
important example of why so many of us in the open source and free software
communities believe that the IETF patent policy must be improved. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span lang=EN-US
style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>