On the best use of IETF resources with respect to IPR

Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> Fri, 13 February 2009 14:36 UTC

Return-Path: <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
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 90E3D28C26E for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Feb 2009 06:36:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 u1bCjCFFdKs4 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Feb 2009 06:36:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from balder-227.proper.com (properopus-pt.tunnel.tserv3.fmt2.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f04:392::2]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E28428C267 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Feb 2009 06:36:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.20.30.158] (dsl-63-249-108-169.cruzio.com [63.249.108.169]) (authenticated bits=0) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id n1DEa821078818 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 13 Feb 2009 07:36:09 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <p0624081ac5bb32a00aa5@[10.20.30.158]>
In-Reply-To: <87bpt6im7l.fsf@mocca.josefsson.org>
References: <87bpt9ou7d.fsf@mocca.josefsson.org> <C5B8BAE5.30347%stewe@stewe.org> <87k57vlwfu.fsf@mocca.josefsson.org> <49941899.5010506@piuha.net> <alpine.LSU.2.00.0902121243481.4546@hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk> <499447D1.6060600@alvestrand.no> <87mycrjsuz.fsf@mocca.josefsson.org> <4994AE67.7050007@alvestrand.no> <87r622iq1p.fsf@mocca.josefsson.org> <49954E44.3030704@alvestrand.no> <87iqneio0p.fsf@mocca.josefsson.org> <4995588F.6090805@alvestrand.no> <87bpt6im7l.fsf@mocca.josefsson.org>
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 06:36:07 -0800
To: Simon Josefsson <simon@josefsson.org>, Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
Subject: On the best use of IETF resources with respect to IPR
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
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 14:36:10 -0000

At 12:57 PM +0100 2/13/09, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>I believe it is possible to find proprietary licenses that have other
>clauses that render the license incompatible with the IETF Trust
>license.  So the problem is wider than just free software licenses.  I
>believe the IETF needs to realize that GPL software runs part of the
>Internet and that catering to these licensing needs is as important as
>catering to the licensing needs of, say, Microsoft.

I have not seen the IETF spend much time trying to cater to the licensing needs of, say, Microsoft.

>The license compatibility question is more relevant for free software
>because people are more conservative in evaluating software licenses in
>the free software community compared to the enterprise setting where
>licenses are typically only ever evaluated when someone sues or is sued
>by someone.

So, in essence, you are saying "because there is a community of developers who have a particular way of evaluating licenses, the IETF should spend a lot of time trying to cater to them".

>My point has been that triggering this situation works counter to the
>goal of the IETF. 

Please specifically state "the goal". I believe that you will find that it is, in fact, not a goal that is widely-held in the IETF.

>In a strict setting, it means implementers cannot use
>verbatim text from RFCs,

s/implementers/a subset of implementers who have a particular way of evaluating licenses/

> but needs to rewrite the text to avoid re-use
>of material under the IETF Trust license.  I believe that opens up for
>interoperability problems (when a re-written comment is subtly different
>from the original meaning, and the comment influences code).  If people
>decide that this rewriting needs to happen to avoid contamination from
>the IETF Trust license, it would also delay getting IETF protocols
>deployed.

...by those developers.

>This has been my rationale for suggesting that IETF documents should be
>licensed under a free software compatible license. 

They are already licensed that way, for one common understanding of "free software compatible license". You have a different understanding for your purposes. You are (repeatedly) asking us to change our license for your understanding.

>I am aware that
>battle is already lost, so I have mixed feelings about discussing this
>further. 

...so you launched dozens of people with much less understanding than you into sending one-way comments on the topic. In the future, please check your mix of feelings more carefully.

>Generally, however, I think this question is very different from where
>this thread started.  It started, as far as I consider, with Stephan
>suggesting that free software authors publish "free" (as in licensed
>under a free software license) standards in the IETF.  That is not
>possible

...by your interpretation, but clearly is possible by other people's interpretation...

>, and is unrelated to the question we discuss here.  I'm happy
>to discuss both questions, but I'm concerned that you and others may
>believe that you dispute my first claim by discussing this separate
>issue.
>
>> With the GPL text, you don't have the copyright, and you don't have a
>> license that permits modified versions. But you do have the right to
>> copy it.
>>
>> With the excerpt from an RFC, you don't have the copyright, and you
>> don't have a license that permits modified versions. But you do have
>> the right to copy it - you even have the right to copy pieces of it.
>>
>> Why are you insisting that the first is perfectly reasonable, and the
>> second is a show-stopper?
>
>I'm not saying the second is a show stopper.  The Internet appears to
>work relatively well on most days.  However, I insist that it is a
>potential impediment and that it works counter to the goals of the IETF.

Your recent actions make it sound like you feel that it is a better use of IETF time to do work to make a subset of developers who have one particular view of licensing happy than to develop the technology we are good at. I propose that the opposite is true.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium