Re: OpenSource vs. IETF Standards

Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> Fri, 01 August 2014 08:21 UTC

Return-Path: <vesely@tana.it>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 263A01A0377 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 Aug 2014 01:21:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.423
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.423 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HELO_EQ_IT=0.635, HOST_EQ_IT=1.245, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hVOn-ma9nViN for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 Aug 2014 01:21:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wmail.tana.it (wmail.tana.it [62.94.243.226]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3BADA1A036F for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 1 Aug 2014 01:21:47 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=beta; t=1406881302; bh=AUkwn1UAvoVfYspmRfnPGpijJGNw9cupL279iQ3MSbc=; l=1232; h=Date:From:To:References:In-Reply-To; b=skq1ghRBooJcN5GFo+bpDKfzL4489NaeebmmFVKyl7e3DgE4FozKAudmLi9oTvi31 5TABRNf/10/YLIhkxnVF4ehHFhCaZRFkKFl3CEckOvTtD5zMi5YxTQGds+yOdxdwU0 FRhOLCv6OTbSv2eaV4Yava0AXcdTLBU4srh0ycHE=
Authentication-Results: tana.it; auth=pass (details omitted)
Received: from [109.113.167.192] ([109.113.167.192]) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 uXDGrn@SYT0/k, TLS: TLSv1/SSLv3,128bits,AES128-SHA) by wmail.tana.it with ESMTPSA; Fri, 01 Aug 2014 10:21:37 +0200 id 00000000005DC039.0000000053DB4E13.00003D0A
Message-ID: <53DB4E04.4010008@tana.it>
Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2014 10:21:24 +0200
From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: OpenSource vs. IETF Standards
References: <53D69E96.5080709@openca.org> <53D90B21.2060607@openca.org> <34198B9A-9ACF-45CE-BC82-ADD4EAD784AA@isi.edu> <53DAA35D.7080600@gmail.com> <B3B854BC-40C7-4335-9B0B-82F907B23D72@isi.edu> <53DB1140.6010807@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <53DB1140.6010807@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/t9jtFqEiyP-5bjtIHdt7LzOR9G4
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/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, 01 Aug 2014 08:21:49 -0000

On Fri 01/Aug/2014 06:02:08 +0200 Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> On 01/08/2014 08:50, manning bill wrote:
> 
>> As you properly have tabled, some of these IETF standards are
>> subject to IPR claims, which the IETF mgmt and its sponsoring
>> organization have prudently recognized.  Publication of such
>> material, encumbered by Intellectual Property Rights, clearly
>> suggests that the IETF standard in question can not, in fact, be
>> represented in open source without violation of IP laws.
>>
>> Codec and Crypto specs tend to be owned.
> 
> If they are published as RFCs the boilerplate will indicate
> rights; but watch out for the change of rules introduced by RFC5378.

Some organizations, e.g. FSF, actively campaign against patents.  OTOH,
most SDOs seem to act as mediators between patent owners and their
clients.  I wonder whether it is at all possible to stand somewhere in
between liberty and industrial support, rather than taking a firm stand
on either side.

Of course, it would be impressive if the IETF proclaimed its stand in
that respect.  RFC 5378 doesn't seem to promise such kind of statement,
and I'm unable to even imagine how on earth consensus could be achieved
on such topic...

Ale