RE: FSF's comment on draft-housley-tls-authz-extns
"Powers Chuck-RXCP20" <Chuck.Powers@motorola.com> Fri, 13 February 2009 16:39 UTC
Return-Path: <Chuck.Powers@motorola.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D3F73A6C42 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Feb 2009 08:39:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_32=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MHWPw+let5nr for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Feb 2009 08:39:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail153.messagelabs.com (mail153.messagelabs.com [216.82.253.51]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id D61933A6BCB for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Feb 2009 08:39:51 -0800 (PST)
X-VirusChecked: Checked
X-Env-Sender: Chuck.Powers@motorola.com
X-Msg-Ref: server-7.tower-153.messagelabs.com!1234543197!9071547!1
X-StarScan-Version: 6.0.0; banners=-,-,-
X-Originating-IP: [129.188.136.8]
Received: (qmail 12587 invoked from network); 13 Feb 2009 16:39:57 -0000
Received: from motgate8.mot.com (HELO motgate8.mot.com) (129.188.136.8) by server-7.tower-153.messagelabs.com with SMTP; 13 Feb 2009 16:39:57 -0000
Received: from il06exr01.mot.com (il06exr01.mot.com [129.188.137.131]) by motgate8.mot.com (8.12.11/Motorola) with ESMTP id n1DGdvoL027986 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Feb 2009 09:39:57 -0700 (MST)
Received: from il06vts02.mot.com (il06vts02.mot.com [129.188.137.142]) by il06exr01.mot.com (8.13.5/Vontu) with SMTP id n1DGdu62001786 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Feb 2009 10:39:56 -0600 (CST)
Received: from de01exm69.ds.mot.com (de01exm69.am.mot.com [10.176.8.25]) by il06exr01.mot.com (8.13.5/8.13.0) with ESMTP id n1DGdunh001780 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Feb 2009 10:39:56 -0600 (CST)
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: RE: FSF's comment on draft-housley-tls-authz-extns
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 11:39:55 -0500
Message-ID: <2963ECA56B01F94B9964469DCB8A2B5A05610DCF@de01exm69.ds.mot.com>
In-Reply-To: <01N5FZ99K7D600007A@mauve.mrochek.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: FSF's comment on draft-housley-tls-authz-extns
thread-index: AcmN98hNKUUIBJiARZullPc5asPlPwAAePSg
References: <87skmknar8.fsf@ashbery.wjsullivan.net><tslfxiiuzs5.fsf@live.mit.edu> <01N5FZ99K7D600007A@mauve.mrochek.com>
From: Powers Chuck-RXCP20 <Chuck.Powers@motorola.com>
To: ned+ietf@mauve.mrochek.com, Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@mit.edu>
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 16:39:53 -0000
+1 Regards, Chuck ------------- Chuck Powers, Motorola, Inc phone: 512-427-7261 mobile: 512-576-0008 > -----Original Message----- > From: ietf-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-bounces@ietf.org] On > Behalf Of ned+ietf@mauve.mrochek.com > Sent: Friday, February 13, 2009 10:14 AM > To: Sam Hartman > Cc: ietf@ietf.org > Subject: Re: FSF's comment on draft-housley-tls-authz-extns > > > ... > > > I'm sorry, I don't see this at all. I appreciate that you > quoted the > > text in question. However I don't see anything in the language you > > quote that applies differently to either users or developers. > > Well, there's something of an exemption for developers > producing generic > uilding block software. But I take your point to be that a > developer who, say, > puts in specialized support for a Redphone critical extension > (item one of the > four), would clearly be infringing. > > > The text is saying that the transport mechanisms described in the > > Housley draft are not covered by the patent. However the > text goes on > > to say that some ways in which an implementation might employ those > > transport mechanisms would be covered by the patent. As I read the > > text, both developers and users who used the mechanisms in > the Housley > > draft in any of these four ways would infringe the patent, Redphone > > claims. > > Nicely put. I agree with this assessment. > > > However I'll also note that there are significant uses of the > > transport mechanisms in the Housley draft that are > interesting both to > > the free software and IETF communities that fall well outside these > > four areas. In particular, transporting in-band group > memberships and > > authorization/attribute assertions see.ms to fall outside > these areas. > > Exactly. > > > I can understand why the GNU project would not choose to ship an > > extension to GNU TLS that used this transport to send agreement > > locations. > > Sure, that would clearly infringe. The question to my mind is > whether or not > this is an overly onerous restriction. I don't think it is > but others may > disagree. > > > However, it is completely absurd to claim that because some > > infrastructure building block could (by writing additional software) > > be used in a manner that infringes a patent that no free software > > version of that building block can exist. As an example, the FSF > > ships a compiler collection that can be used to infringe a number of > > patents in the hands of someone who has infringing source code. The > > GNU/Linux kernel includes a TCP implementation that can be used to > > infringe Redphone's patent. > > This is the point I was trying to make in my earlier > response. There are many > use-case patents built on top of pretty much any protocol > building block you > can think of. If we adopt the theory, which is implicit in many of the > objections I've seem to this document, that we cannot work on > protocol building > blocks when such use-case patents exist, we'll effectively be > out of business. > > I will also point out that the list of IPR disclosures > includes very few of > these patents. Demanding the disclosure of all such patents > participants are > aware of would be ... interesting. > > Ned > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf >
- FSF's comment on draft-housley-tls-authz-extns John Sullivan
- Re: FSF's comment on draft-housley-tls-authz-extns Willie Gillespie
- Re: FSF's comment on draft-housley-tls-authz-extns Paul Hoffman
- Re: FSF's comment on draft-housley-tls-authz-extns Sam Hartman
- References to Redphone's "patent" Lawrence Rosen
- Re: FSF's comment on draft-housley-tls-authz-extns ned+ietf
- RE: FSF's comment on draft-housley-tls-authz-extns Powers Chuck-RXCP20
- Re: References to Redphone's "patent" Thierry Moreau
- RE: References to Redphone's "patent" Lawrence Rosen
- RE: References to Redphone's "patent" Ted Hardie
- Re: References to Redphone's "patent" Thierry Moreau
- How we got here, RE: References to Redphone's "pa… Hallam-Baker, Phillip
- Re: How we got here, RE: References to Redphone's… Brian E Carpenter
- RE: How we got here, RE: References to Redphone's… Hallam-Baker, Phillip
- Re: How we got here, RE: References to Redphone's… Henning Schulzrinne
- Re: How we got here, RE: References to Redphone's… Michael Richardson
- Re: FSF's comment on draft-housley-tls-authz-extns Byung-Hee HWANG
- Re: FSF's comment on draft-housley-tls-authz-extns John Sullivan