Re: [TLS] Last Call: draft-ietf-tls-extractor (Keying Material Exporters for Transport Layer Security (TLS)) to Proposed Standard

Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> Fri, 24 July 2009 01:37 UTC

Return-Path: <rms@gnu.org>
X-Original-To: tls@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tls@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97F833A6A8E; Thu, 23 Jul 2009 18:37:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 ZB+KGlc9gy1v; Thu, 23 Jul 2009 18:37:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fencepost.gnu.org (fencepost.gnu.org [140.186.70.10]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D49823A69BA; Thu, 23 Jul 2009 18:37:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rms by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from <rms@gnu.org>) id 1MU9jO-0007UF-Sl; Thu, 23 Jul 2009 21:37:54 -0400
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-15"
From: Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org>
To: Nicolas Williams <Nicolas.Williams@sun.com>
In-reply-to: <20090722223622.GP1020@Sun.COM> (message from Nicolas Williams on Wed, 22 Jul 2009 17:36:23 -0500)
References: <026364d64021d6cef8b930cf16df1221.squirrel@www.trepanning.net> <Pine.LNX.4.44.0907201645020.16218-100000@citation2.av8.net> <20090721195028.GQ1020@Sun.COM> <E1MTkBi-0007Gi-5e@fencepost.gnu.org> <20090722223622.GP1020@Sun.COM>
Message-Id: <E1MU9jO-0007UF-Sl@fencepost.gnu.org>
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 21:37:54 -0400
Cc: tls@ietf.org, ietf-honest@lists.iadl.org, ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [TLS] Last Call: draft-ietf-tls-extractor (Keying Material Exporters for Transport Layer Security (TLS)) to Proposed Standard
X-BeenThere: tls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: rms@gnu.org
List-Id: "This is the mailing list for the Transport Layer Security working group of the IETF." <tls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls>, <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls>
List-Post: <mailto:tls@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls>, <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 01:37:56 -0000

    The operative word here is uncertainty.  A patent-holder creates
    uncertainty.  How should an SDO respond?  I'm not sure.  I'm only sure
    that I don't like getting DoSed, either into dropping a standard or into
    not implementing it for fear of infringing.

That's the nature of software patents: each one denies people the
freedom to write and run certain kinds of software.  This is why we
must abolish software patents.

Until we succeed in doing that, we can resist in certain ways.  One of
them is to refuse to establish standards that encourage their use.

Generally speaking, standards are useful, because they enable people
to converge what they are doing.  But that ceases to be true when the
use of the standard is patented.  It is better to have no standard
than have a standard that invites people into danger.