[Cerowrt-devel] Fwd: License File for Open Source Repositories

[Cerowrt-devel] Fwd: License File for Open Source Repositories

[Dave Taht]

I have no idea what they are trying to do.


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: IESG Secretary <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
Date: Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 7:36 AM
Subject: License File for Open Source Repositories
To: IETF Announcement List <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
Cc: iesg@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org


The IESG has observed that many working groups work with open source
repositories even for their work on specifications. That's great, and
we're happy to see this development, as it fits well the working style
of at least some of our working groups. This style is also likely to be
more popular in the future.

As always, we'd like to understand areas where we can either be helpful
in bringing in some new things such as tooling, or where we need to
integrate better between the repository world and the IETF process. As
an example of the latter, we're wondering whether it would be helpful to
have a standard boilerplate for these repositories with respect to the
usual copyright and other matters. The intent is for such text to be
placed in a suitable file (e.g., "CONTRIBUTING"), probably along with
some additional information that is already present in these files in
many repositories. The idea is that people should treat, e.g., text
contributions to a draft-foo.xml in a repository much in the same way as
they treat text contributions on the list, at least when it comes to
copyright, IPR, and other similar issues.

We have worked together with the IETF legal team and few key experts
from the IETF who are actively using these repositories, and suggest the
following text.

We're looking to make a decision on this matter on our January 19th,
2017 IESG Telechat, and would appreciate feedback before then. This
message will be resent after the holiday period is over to make sure it
is noticed. Please send comments to the IESG (iesg@ietf.org) by 2017-01-17.

The IESG

——

This repository relates to activities in the Internet Engineering Task
Force(IETF). All material in this repository is considered Contributions
to the IETF Standards Process, as defined in the intellectual property
policies of IETF currently designated as BCP 78
(https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp78), BCP 79
(https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79) and the IETF Trust Legal
Provisions (TLP) Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/trust-legal-provisions.html).

Any edit, commit, pull-request, comment or other change made to this
repository constitutes Contributions to the IETF Standards Process. You
agree to comply with all applicable IETF policies and procedures,
including, BCP 78, 79, the TLP, and the TLP rules regarding code
components (e.g. being subject to a Simplified BSD License) in
Contributions.



-- 
Dave Täht
Let's go make home routers and wifi faster! With better software!
http://blog.cerowrt.org

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] Fwd: License File for Open Source Repositories

[Marc Petit-Huguenin]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3673 bytes --]

On 12/23/2016 08:05 AM, Dave Taht wrote:
> I have no idea what they are trying to do.

This is to prevent people to propose text to be included in a specification without disclosing that this may be relevant to a patent or patent application they own or know about.  As soon you make a contribution, you are supposed to disclose such IPR in the IETF database.  This text makes it explicit that anything done in such repository is covered by the same requirements.

An alternative would have been a variant of the Signed-off-by header, but as the repository does not extend to the RFC-editor or the IETF Trust, that's, the best that can be done for now.

> 
> 
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: IESG Secretary <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
> Date: Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 7:36 AM
> Subject: License File for Open Source Repositories
> To: IETF Announcement List <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
> Cc: iesg@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org
> 
> 
> The IESG has observed that many working groups work with open source
> repositories even for their work on specifications. That's great, and
> we're happy to see this development, as it fits well the working style
> of at least some of our working groups. This style is also likely to be
> more popular in the future.
> 
> As always, we'd like to understand areas where we can either be helpful
> in bringing in some new things such as tooling, or where we need to
> integrate better between the repository world and the IETF process. As
> an example of the latter, we're wondering whether it would be helpful to
> have a standard boilerplate for these repositories with respect to the
> usual copyright and other matters. The intent is for such text to be
> placed in a suitable file (e.g., "CONTRIBUTING"), probably along with
> some additional information that is already present in these files in
> many repositories. The idea is that people should treat, e.g., text
> contributions to a draft-foo.xml in a repository much in the same way as
> they treat text contributions on the list, at least when it comes to
> copyright, IPR, and other similar issues.
> 
> We have worked together with the IETF legal team and few key experts
> from the IETF who are actively using these repositories, and suggest the
> following text.
> 
> We're looking to make a decision on this matter on our January 19th,
> 2017 IESG Telechat, and would appreciate feedback before then. This
> message will be resent after the holiday period is over to make sure it
> is noticed. Please send comments to the IESG (iesg@ietf.org) by 2017-01-17.
> 
> The IESG
> 
> ——
> 
> This repository relates to activities in the Internet Engineering Task
> Force(IETF). All material in this repository is considered Contributions
> to the IETF Standards Process, as defined in the intellectual property
> policies of IETF currently designated as BCP 78
> (https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp78), BCP 79
> (https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79) and the IETF Trust Legal
> Provisions (TLP) Relating to IETF Documents
> (http://trustee.ietf.org/trust-legal-provisions.html).
> 
> Any edit, commit, pull-request, comment or other change made to this
> repository constitutes Contributions to the IETF Standards Process. You
> agree to comply with all applicable IETF policies and procedures,
> including, BCP 78, 79, the TLP, and the TLP rules regarding code
> components (e.g. being subject to a Simplified BSD License) in
> Contributions.
> 
> 
> 


-- 
Marc Petit-Huguenin
Email: marc@petit-huguenin.org
Blog: https://marc.petit-huguenin.org
Profile: https://www.linkedin.com/in/petithug


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] Fwd: License File for Open Source Repositories

[Michael Richardson]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 866 bytes --]


Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com> wrote:
    > I have no idea what they are trying to do.

When an IETF Internet-draft is on github, it still belongs to the IETF.

As such, someone who submits a pull request, etc. needs to understand that
they are still covered by the IETF Note Well, same as if they posted to the
mailing list, or uploaded a document to ietf.org.

This matters for things like protocol actions that might be covered by
(software) patents.

What the IESG is trying to do, is normalize the text associated with this.
Normal licenses make the lawyers happier, because they can charge more
for doing less work.

--
]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh networks [
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        | network architect  [
]     mcr@sandelman.ca  http://www.sandelman.ca/        |   ruby on rails    [


[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 487 bytes --]

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] Fwd: License File for Open Source Repositories

[dpreed]

My understanding is that it is already settled case law that contributed code to a GPL licensed projects implicitly grants a perpetual, royalty free license to use any applicable patent the author uses in the code.

Of course there is no case law regarding patent s in other licenses, in particular MIT and BSD, which have no strong copyleft provisions.

This issue of submarine patent traps is important in communications protocol invention. Protocol patents are far worse than software patents... IMO, communications protocols should never be property. IESG is struggling to create a middle ground, where there should be no middle, IMO.





-----Original Message-----
From: "Marc Petit-Huguenin" <marc@petit-huguenin.org>
Sent: Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 2:23 pm
To: "Dave Taht" <dave.taht@gmail.com>, "cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net" <cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net>
Cc: "Dave Taht" <dave.taht@gmail.com>, "cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net" <cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net>
Subject: Re: [Cerowrt-devel] Fwd: License File for Open Source Repositories

On 12/23/2016 08:05 AM, Dave Taht wrote:
> I have no idea what they are trying to do.

This is to prevent people to propose text to be included in a specification without disclosing that this may be relevant to a patent or patent application they own or know about.  As soon you make a contribution, you are supposed to disclose such IPR in the IETF database.  This text makes it explicit that anything done in such repository is covered by the same requirements.

An alternative would have been a variant of the Signed-off-by header, but as the repository does not extend to the RFC-editor or the IETF Trust, that's, the best that can be done for now.

> 
> 
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: IESG Secretary 
> Date: Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 7:36 AM
> Subject: License File for Open Source Repositories
> To: IETF Announcement List 
> Cc: iesg@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org
> 
> 
> The IESG has observed that many working groups work with open source
> repositories even for their work on specifications. That's great, and
> we're happy to see this development, as it fits well the working style
> of at least some of our working groups. This style is also likely to be
> more popular in the future.
> 
> As always, we'd like to understand areas where we can either be helpful
> in bringing in some new things such as tooling, or where we need to
> integrate better between the repository world and the IETF process. As
> an example of the latter, we're wondering whether it would be helpful to
> have a standard boilerplate for these repositories with respect to the
> usual copyright and other matters. The intent is for such text to be
> placed in a suitable file (e.g., "CONTRIBUTING"), probably along with
> some additional information that is already present in these files in
> many repositories. The idea is that people should treat, e.g., text
> contributions to a draft-foo.xml in a repository much in the same way as
> they treat text contributions on the list, at least when it comes to
> copyright, IPR, and other similar issues.
> 
> We have worked together with the IETF legal team and few key experts
> from the IETF who are actively using these repositories, and suggest the
> following text.
> 
> We're looking to make a decision on this matter on our January 19th,
> 2017 IESG Telechat, and would appreciate feedback before then. This
> message will be resent after the holiday period is over to make sure it
> is noticed. Please send comments to the IESG (iesg@ietf.org) by 2017-01-17.
> 
> The IESG
> 
> ——
> 
> This repository relates to activities in the Internet Engineering Task
> Force(IETF). All material in this repository is considered Contributions
> to the IETF Standards Process, as defined in the intellectual property
> policies of IETF currently designated as BCP 78
> (https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp78), BCP 79
> (https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79) and the IETF Trust Legal
> Provisions (TLP) Relating to IETF Documents
> (http://trustee.ietf.org/trust-legal-provisions.html).
> 
> Any edit, commit, pull-request, comment or other change made to this
> repository constitutes Contributions to the IETF Standards Process. You
> agree to comply with all applicable IETF policies and procedures,
> including, BCP 78, 79, the TLP, and the TLP rules regarding code
> components (e.g. being subject to a Simplified BSD License) in
> Contributions.
> 
> 
> 


-- 
Marc Petit-Huguenin
Email: marc@petit-huguenin.org
Blog: https://marc.petit-huguenin.org
Profile: https://www.linkedin.com/in/petithug

_______________________________________________
Cerowrt-devel mailing list
Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] Fwd: License File for Open Source Repositories

[Dave Taht]

On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 11:44 AM,  <dpreed@reed.com> wrote:
> My understanding is that it is already settled case law that contributed code to a GPL licensed projects implicitly grants a perpetual, royalty free license to use any applicable patent the author uses in the code.

According to this it is not settled case law in the UK. Apache, on the
other hand...

http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Patent_clauses_in_software_licences#Apache_License_2.0


> Of course there is no case law regarding patent s in other licenses, in particular MIT and BSD, which have no strong copyleft provisions.

Yes, I think *mandating* that ietf contributions be under a weak,
unsettled license is fraught with problems.

>
> This issue of submarine patent traps is important in communications protocol invention. Protocol patents are far worse than software patents... IMO, communications protocols should never be property. IESG is struggling to create a middle ground, where there should be no middle, IMO.

Tend to agree.

>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: "Marc Petit-Huguenin" <marc@petit-huguenin.org>
> Sent: Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 2:23 pm
> To: "Dave Taht" <dave.taht@gmail.com>, "cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net" <cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net>
> Cc: "Dave Taht" <dave.taht@gmail.com>, "cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net" <cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net>
> Subject: Re: [Cerowrt-devel] Fwd: License File for Open Source Repositories
>
> On 12/23/2016 08:05 AM, Dave Taht wrote:
>> I have no idea what they are trying to do.
>
> This is to prevent people to propose text to be included in a specification without disclosing that this may be relevant to a patent or patent application they own or know about.  As soon you make a contribution, you are supposed to disclose such IPR in the IETF database.  This text makes it explicit that anything done in such repository is covered by the same requirements.
>
> An alternative would have been a variant of the Signed-off-by header, but as the repository does not extend to the RFC-editor or the IETF Trust, that's, the best that can be done for now.
>
>>
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: IESG Secretary
>> Date: Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 7:36 AM
>> Subject: License File for Open Source Repositories
>> To: IETF Announcement List
>> Cc: iesg@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org
>>
>>
>> The IESG has observed that many working groups work with open source
>> repositories even for their work on specifications. That's great, and
>> we're happy to see this development, as it fits well the working style
>> of at least some of our working groups. This style is also likely to be
>> more popular in the future.
>>
>> As always, we'd like to understand areas where we can either be helpful
>> in bringing in some new things such as tooling, or where we need to
>> integrate better between the repository world and the IETF process. As
>> an example of the latter, we're wondering whether it would be helpful to
>> have a standard boilerplate for these repositories with respect to the
>> usual copyright and other matters. The intent is for such text to be
>> placed in a suitable file (e.g., "CONTRIBUTING"), probably along with
>> some additional information that is already present in these files in
>> many repositories. The idea is that people should treat, e.g., text
>> contributions to a draft-foo.xml in a repository much in the same way as
>> they treat text contributions on the list, at least when it comes to
>> copyright, IPR, and other similar issues.
>>
>> We have worked together with the IETF legal team and few key experts
>> from the IETF who are actively using these repositories, and suggest the
>> following text.
>>
>> We're looking to make a decision on this matter on our January 19th,
>> 2017 IESG Telechat, and would appreciate feedback before then. This
>> message will be resent after the holiday period is over to make sure it
>> is noticed. Please send comments to the IESG (iesg@ietf.org) by 2017-01-17.
>>
>> The IESG
>>
>> ——
>>
>> This repository relates to activities in the Internet Engineering Task
>> Force(IETF). All material in this repository is considered Contributions
>> to the IETF Standards Process, as defined in the intellectual property
>> policies of IETF currently designated as BCP 78
>> (https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp78), BCP 79
>> (https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79) and the IETF Trust Legal
>> Provisions (TLP) Relating to IETF Documents
>> (http://trustee.ietf.org/trust-legal-provisions.html).
>>
>> Any edit, commit, pull-request, comment or other change made to this
>> repository constitutes Contributions to the IETF Standards Process. You
>> agree to comply with all applicable IETF policies and procedures,
>> including, BCP 78, 79, the TLP, and the TLP rules regarding code
>> components (e.g. being subject to a Simplified BSD License) in
>> Contributions.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Marc Petit-Huguenin
> Email: marc@petit-huguenin.org
> Blog: https://marc.petit-huguenin.org
> Profile: https://www.linkedin.com/in/petithug
>
> _______________________________________________
> Cerowrt-devel mailing list
> Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel
>
>



-- 
Dave Täht
Let's go make home routers and wifi faster! With better software!
http://blog.cerowrt.org

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] Fwd: License File for Open Source Repositories

[Marc Petit-Huguenin]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5795 bytes --]

On 12/23/2016 12:17 PM, Dave Taht wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 11:44 AM,  <dpreed@reed.com> wrote:
>> My understanding is that it is already settled case law that contributed code to a GPL licensed projects implicitly grants a perpetual, royalty free license to use any applicable patent the author uses in the code.
> 
> According to this it is not settled case law in the UK. Apache, on the
> other hand...
> 
> http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Patent_clauses_in_software_licences#Apache_License_2.0
> 
> 
>> Of course there is no case law regarding patent s in other licenses, in particular MIT and BSD, which have no strong copyleft provisions.
> 
> Yes, I think *mandating* that ietf contributions be under a weak,
> unsettled license is fraught with problems.

The code inside an RFC is always under a Simplified BSD License, but that is not what the License described below is about.  It is about the text of the RFC itself, which is under a far more restrictive license (which is why Debian, among others, cannot redistribute RFCs) on the copyright side, and that require mandatory disclosure on the patent side.

> 
>>
>> This issue of submarine patent traps is important in communications protocol invention. Protocol patents are far worse than software patents... IMO, communications protocols should never be property. IESG is struggling to create a middle ground, where there should be no middle, IMO.
> 

Aren't communication protocols mathematics, e.g. propositions in linear logic, and so unpatentable?

> Tend to agree.
> 
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: "Marc Petit-Huguenin" <marc@petit-huguenin.org>
>> Sent: Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 2:23 pm
>> To: "Dave Taht" <dave.taht@gmail.com>, "cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net" <cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>> Cc: "Dave Taht" <dave.taht@gmail.com>, "cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net" <cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>> Subject: Re: [Cerowrt-devel] Fwd: License File for Open Source Repositories
>>
>> On 12/23/2016 08:05 AM, Dave Taht wrote:
>>> I have no idea what they are trying to do.
>>
>> This is to prevent people to propose text to be included in a specification without disclosing that this may be relevant to a patent or patent application they own or know about.  As soon you make a contribution, you are supposed to disclose such IPR in the IETF database.  This text makes it explicit that anything done in such repository is covered by the same requirements.
>>
>> An alternative would have been a variant of the Signed-off-by header, but as the repository does not extend to the RFC-editor or the IETF Trust, that's, the best that can be done for now.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>> From: IESG Secretary
>>> Date: Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 7:36 AM
>>> Subject: License File for Open Source Repositories
>>> To: IETF Announcement List
>>> Cc: iesg@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org
>>>
>>>
>>> The IESG has observed that many working groups work with open source
>>> repositories even for their work on specifications. That's great, and
>>> we're happy to see this development, as it fits well the working style
>>> of at least some of our working groups. This style is also likely to be
>>> more popular in the future.
>>>
>>> As always, we'd like to understand areas where we can either be helpful
>>> in bringing in some new things such as tooling, or where we need to
>>> integrate better between the repository world and the IETF process. As
>>> an example of the latter, we're wondering whether it would be helpful to
>>> have a standard boilerplate for these repositories with respect to the
>>> usual copyright and other matters. The intent is for such text to be
>>> placed in a suitable file (e.g., "CONTRIBUTING"), probably along with
>>> some additional information that is already present in these files in
>>> many repositories. The idea is that people should treat, e.g., text
>>> contributions to a draft-foo.xml in a repository much in the same way as
>>> they treat text contributions on the list, at least when it comes to
>>> copyright, IPR, and other similar issues.
>>>
>>> We have worked together with the IETF legal team and few key experts
>>> from the IETF who are actively using these repositories, and suggest the
>>> following text.
>>>
>>> We're looking to make a decision on this matter on our January 19th,
>>> 2017 IESG Telechat, and would appreciate feedback before then. This
>>> message will be resent after the holiday period is over to make sure it
>>> is noticed. Please send comments to the IESG (iesg@ietf.org) by 2017-01-17.
>>>
>>> The IESG
>>>
>>> ——
>>>
>>> This repository relates to activities in the Internet Engineering Task
>>> Force(IETF). All material in this repository is considered Contributions
>>> to the IETF Standards Process, as defined in the intellectual property
>>> policies of IETF currently designated as BCP 78
>>> (https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp78), BCP 79
>>> (https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79) and the IETF Trust Legal
>>> Provisions (TLP) Relating to IETF Documents
>>> (http://trustee.ietf.org/trust-legal-provisions.html).
>>>
>>> Any edit, commit, pull-request, comment or other change made to this
>>> repository constitutes Contributions to the IETF Standards Process. You
>>> agree to comply with all applicable IETF policies and procedures,
>>> including, BCP 78, 79, the TLP, and the TLP rules regarding code
>>> components (e.g. being subject to a Simplified BSD License) in
>>> Contributions.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>



-- 
Marc Petit-Huguenin
Email: marc@petit-huguenin.org
Blog: https://marc.petit-huguenin.org
Profile: https://www.linkedin.com/in/petithug



[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] Fwd: License File for Open Source Repositories

[Jonathan Morton]

> On 23 Dec, 2016, at 22:35, Marc Petit-Huguenin <marc@petit-huguenin.org> wrote:
> 
> Aren't communication protocols mathematics, e.g. propositions in linear logic, and so unpatentable?

I would agree with that assessment.  Unfortunately, that doesn’t seem to stop patent offices from issuing such patents and courts from hearing cases brought on them.

 - Jonathan Morton

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] Fwd: License File for Open Source Repositories

[Marc Petit-Huguenin]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 881 bytes --]

On 12/23/2016 05:35 PM, Jonathan Morton wrote:
> 
>> On 23 Dec, 2016, at 22:35, Marc Petit-Huguenin <marc@petit-huguenin.org> wrote:
>>
>> Aren't communication protocols mathematics, e.g. propositions in linear logic, and so unpatentable?
> 
> I would agree with that assessment.  Unfortunately, that doesn’t seem to stop patent offices from issuing such patents and courts from hearing cases brought on them.
> 

Maybe one day they'll reject these kind of applications the same way they reject application for perpetual machines:

http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-adv.html&r=0&f=S&l=50&d=PG01&Query=CCL%2F%2274%22%2FDIG.9

>  - Jonathan Morton
> 


-- 
Marc Petit-Huguenin
Email: marc@petit-huguenin.org
Blog: https://marc.petit-huguenin.org
Profile: https://www.linkedin.com/in/petithug


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] Fwd: License File for Open Source Repositories

[Dave Taht]

My christmas wish: that this concurrence becomes a majority opinion.

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20161005/15280135720/prominent-pro-patent-judge-issues-opinion-declaring-all-software-patents-bad.shtml

On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 6:01 PM, Marc Petit-Huguenin
<marc@petit-huguenin.org> wrote:
> On 12/23/2016 05:35 PM, Jonathan Morton wrote:
>>
>>> On 23 Dec, 2016, at 22:35, Marc Petit-Huguenin <marc@petit-huguenin.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> Aren't communication protocols mathematics, e.g. propositions in linear logic, and so unpatentable?
>>
>> I would agree with that assessment.  Unfortunately, that doesn’t seem to stop patent offices from issuing such patents and courts from hearing cases brought on them.
>>
>
> Maybe one day they'll reject these kind of applications the same way they reject application for perpetual machines:
>
> http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-adv.html&r=0&f=S&l=50&d=PG01&Query=CCL%2F%2274%22%2FDIG.9
>
>>  - Jonathan Morton
>>
>
>
> --
> Marc Petit-Huguenin
> Email: marc@petit-huguenin.org
> Blog: https://marc.petit-huguenin.org
> Profile: https://www.linkedin.com/in/petithug
>



-- 
Dave Täht
Let's go make home routers and wifi faster! With better software!
http://blog.cerowrt.org

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] Fwd: License File for Open Source Repositories

[Michael Richardson]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1972 bytes --]


Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com> wrote:
    >> Of course there is no case law regarding patent s in other licenses,
    >> in particular MIT and BSD, which have no strong copyleft provisions.

    > Yes, I think *mandating* that ietf contributions be under a weak,
    > unsettled license is fraught with problems.

The IETF has set a minimum IPR process for contributions.  There are many at
the IETF that would like to see WGs consider the open source hostile RAND and
instead consider only RF contributions.  That's an existing debate, and this
text does not change the debate either way.  Rather, it just makes it clear
that the existing policy applies even if you use github.
(The alternative is that we might get submarine patent claims that surfce
in specifications after they have processed)

You don't have to contribute based upon such a minimum.  It turns out to be
hard to claim "no patent applies" on some contribution, one may be better to
file a patent and/or cite an expired one, and offer it as RF...


    >>
    >> This issue of submarine patent traps is important in communications
    >> protocol invention. Protocol patents are far worse than software
    >> patents... IMO, communications protocols should never be
    >> property. IESG is struggling to create a middle ground, where there
    >> should be no middle, IMO.

    > Tend to agree.

Also I want to point out that it's really up to the WG.
The IPR process makes the IPR claims visible, and WGs can decide that the
terms are not acceptable and demand something better.

My experience is that 95% of IETF IPR filings are from morons who didn't
understand their own patent or the protocol at all.  All they did was pattern
match on a few keywords.

--
]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh networks [
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        | network architect  [
]     mcr@sandelman.ca  http://www.sandelman.ca/        |   ruby on rails    [


[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 487 bytes --]