IETF standards should not be patent-encumbered
Robinson Tryon <bishop.robinson@gmail.com> Tue, 10 February 2009 20:13 UTC
Return-Path: <bishop.robinson@gmail.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 16E133A6A99 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Feb 2009 12:13:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, GB_I_INVITATION=-2]
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 8kxmUxrx1NWU for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Feb 2009 12:13:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rn-out-0910.google.com (rn-out-0910.google.com [64.233.170.186]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0DBA53A69DE for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Feb 2009 12:13:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: by rn-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id j66so24603rne.18 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Feb 2009 12:13:32 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=jPersjv9UnyDdPvgus/NiajW/eYderAropT2hSmmVYc=; b=wjG0NIVA7Ssu39AnS2r2YkkiDmzFlzOWUi7oyil+rSlZWq9neKWTJ0f1GKHqrw358P Un0LdXPruvrKpvCzp6CLqy6Ytc4Z1KByzx4iLu7ZKt+wGu+VauDitXaBfl0sU5l3nOsG cGZGATHO27OMMJWDhN9sta9wA1692TH4cKxPk=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=rL5wZUv5SE0gbm+WaGSmyOW7+D73uI3Xr8SfkUUmuTYpx4yzACgZOTEqIg3jIX6azI RgOkMFf4tk5lf0du5Ky/ECN7d4Xc84ogHE/bSUiUTkNqLK61/gw/ZUlbFCTAonjBVNCX qqHed5PbS6eCiBjFcMyS5ljF10Q7JeT9mlsi4=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.150.230.8 with SMTP id c8mr394744ybh.88.1234296812894; Tue, 10 Feb 2009 12:13:32 -0800 (PST)
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 15:13:32 -0500
Message-ID: <a698c16a0902101213uf6440ffr289fe7bc2fc274c7@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: IETF standards should not be patent-encumbered
From: Robinson Tryon <bishop.robinson@gmail.com>
To: ietf@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 16:51:43 -0800
Cc: campaigns@fsf.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: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 20:14:52 -0000
Dear IETF, I just heard news that the IETF is in the process of approving a standard for TLS authorization (draft-housley-tls-authz-extns-07.txt) that includes mechanisms which may be covered under a patent owned by RedPhone Security. RedPhone Security has not provided a royalty-free license to this patent to all users, and without such a license, I do not believe that Free Software operating systems such as GNU/Linux will be able to include code implementing this proposed standard without running the risk of being sued. As the "Overview" page on the IETF website states, "The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) is a large open international community...concerned with the evolution of the Internet architecture and the smooth operation of the Internet. It is open to any interested individual." I thank you for the invitation to participate in the IETF, and I wholeheartedly agree that we should all work together for the overall "smooth operation of the Internet". Providing open standards free of legal barriers to implementation is what made the Internet the open, accessible network that we all enjoy today. If you reject the TLS authorization proposal now and tell RedPhone Security that their licensing terms aren't open enough, one of two things will happen: 1) They provide a royalty-free license for everyone, making it possible for this draft to become an open standard. 2) They don't provide such a royalty-free license, and the IETF avoids publishing a "standard" that is not accessible to all users on the Internet. This seems like a win/win situation. What do you think? As I mentioned above, I really am impressed that the IETF is "open to any interested individual." There are too many standards organizations that are only accessible to large groups and large companies armed with teams of lawyers and endless pools of time and money. Please continue to draft and approve open standards that everyone can implement without fear of legal attack, and please reject proposals that rely on patent-encumbered methods. Above all else, please keep the Internet, like the IETF, open to any interested individual. Sincerely, -- Robinson Tryon
- IETF standards should not be patent-encumbered Robinson Tryon