delite me from your mailing list

[Christian Maletz]

Lawrence Rosen schrieb:
> CROSS-POSTED to OSI and Apache discussion lists (with bcc):
>
> Brian Behlendorf wrote:
>   
>> It was pointed out to me that the following is not true:
>>     
> <snip> <copy of Brian's email below>
>
> Brian's analysis had more truth to it than he realizes. 
>
> The very best of IP counsel at large companies share our confusion about
> IETF and its patent policies. One of those attorneys helped me understand
> the following facts. While this is not the time or venue to address
> specifics about the way IETF handles its patent matters: 
>
> 1. The IETF website contains "Generic IPR Disclosures," which Brian
> accurately summarized. On the other hand, RFC 3979 nowhere mentions such a
> term. Those disclosures are nowhere linked to specific RFCs. There is
> something in RFC 3979 called a "blanket statement" (§ 6.4.3) but it only
> applies when the IPR is free, not RAND. Many of those Generic IPR
> Disclosures aren't royalty-free, and some contain terms that are clearly not
> compatible with open source licenses.
>
> 2. As for the ability to link from an RFC to an IPR statement, that is
> generally impossible because most IETF IPR statements only refer to an
> Internet draft. Some disclosures seem to be updated as new drafts are
> assigned a number, but there are dangling references throughout this IPR
> disclosure list. There is no IETF requirement to update these references
> when an RFC number is assigned. 
>
> Therefore, for companies seeking IPR reassurances to implement an IETF
> specification, a reasonable conclusion given the IETF IPR Disclosures
> website is that you're largely swimming unprotected in an ocean of patents.
>
> For now what we need to do is convince the IETF directors merely that the
> subject of patents must be in-charter for the IETF IPR WG. That way,
> reasonable people will be expected to discuss--on that list and in
> accordance with IETF's rules of openness and careful listening--the patent
> policies of IETF in the context of the requirements of open source. I
> encourage you to speak up in support of that next step.
>
> I'll offer to copy emails to IETF that you're not subscribed to send
> yourself. But see http://www.ietf.org/maillist.html to subscribe. Once the
> IETF IPR WG is properly chartered, that list will become the proper place to
> discuss these issues. If you already participate in an IETF working group,
> now would be a particularly good time to speak up about this patent policy
> problem and request that the charter of the IETF IPR WG include proposals to
> revise IETF's patent policies to make them compatible with open source. 
>
> /Larry Rosen
>
>
>   
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Brian Behlendorf [mailto:brian at collab.net]
>> Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2007 9:59 PM
>> To: license-discuss at opensource.org; 'Legal Discuss'; john-ietf at jck.com
>> Subject: Re: FW: IETF IP Contribution Policy
>>
>>
>> It was pointed out to me that the following is not true:
>>
>> On Fri, 19 Jan 2007, Brian Behlendorf wrote:
>>     
>>> I see that there was only one IPR filing in 2006, compared to 11 in
>>>       
>> 2005. Is
>>     
>>> that a sign that standards efforts at the IETF are trending towards 
>>> encumbrance-free?  Is this a problem that will solve itself?
>>>       
>> ...nor the conclusions that followed.  The list of disclosures is at
>>
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/ipr_list.cgi
>>
>> and I failed to notice that there are not one list but three lists, 
>> one of "generic" disclosures that is short, and another of "specific" 
>> disclosures that is much longer, followed by a list of "third-party 
>> specific disclosures".  There is a handy search engine to be able to 
>> look for disclosures based on RFC number, but as the few searches I 
>> initiall performed did not turn up any hits, I made the mistaken 
>> assumption that it was a sparse dataset.
>>
>> Specific disclosures per year:
>>
>> 2007	13
>> 2006	86
>> 2005	143
>> 2004	103
>> 2003	76
>> 2002	51
>> (and others going back to 1993)
>>
>> My quick-and-dirty analysis in my original email that most of the 
>> grants were RAND and many were RF might still be true, but I don't 
>> have the personal time right now to repeat that with such a large 
>> dataset.  The dip to 86 in 2006 is not a clear trend that disclosures 
>> are declining; the indication that it might have been the case with 
>> the generic disclosures might simply mean that the most common 
>> corporate filers had made their blanket disclosures by a few years ago and
>>     
> they did not need updating.
>   
>> Doing an "ROI" study to see whether on balance this policy has 
>> resulted in better standards and avoided onerous encumbrances would be 
>> fertile ground for a business school research report, perhaps.
>>
>> I still stand behind the following:
>>
>>     
>>> It also appears that you now have nearly 8 years of a disclosure 
>>> policy
>>>       
>> under
>>     
>>> the organization's belt, and a reasonable cost/benefit analysis 
>>> could be done. Have you gone to those who've disclosed IPR and asked 
>>> them whether
>>>       
>> the
>>     
>>> revenue they received from such activities was worth it?  If it 
>>> can't be substantiated that revenues from patent licensing were 
>>> necessary to
>>>       
>> incent
>>     
>>> participation in the IETF, then an RF policy is hard to argue against.
>>>
>>> One of the advantages of a clear policy like the ASF has is the
>>>       
>> simplicity it
>>     
>>> creates for all participants, and the corresponding trust.  Seeing 
>>> an industry leader participating in a particular effort reassures 
>>> everyone
>>>       
>> that
>>     
>>> the leader won't pull a Rambus and swamp everyone's investment of 
>>> time
>>>       
>> and
>>     
>>> thus money into a royalty scheme no matter how "fair and reasonable"
>>>       
>> that
>>     
>>> company might decide that it is being.
>>>
>>> You might be able to treat Larry like an outsider to the IETF 
>>> process,
>>>       
>> but
>>     
>>> many of the people who made the IETF relevant as an organization did 
>>> so
>>>       
>> by
>>     
>>> writing Open Source software, sometimes just as reference
>>>       
>> implementations but
>>     
>>> often by being the category-leading implementations.  Legal jeopardy 
>>> for writing software that implements common standards and giving it 
>>> away for
>>>       
>> free
>>     
>>> is increasing, which is the opposite of what it should be.
>>>       
>> Brian
>>     
>
>
>   


		
___________________________________________________________ 
Telefonate ohne weitere Kosten vom PC zum PC: http://messenger.yahoo.de