From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D0FBA3B2A3 for ; Sat, 24 Dec 2016 15:21:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.21]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B2F7E232; Sat, 24 Dec 2016 15:40:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from obiwan.sandelman.ca (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 490C063770; Sat, 24 Dec 2016 15:21:41 -0500 (EST) From: Michael Richardson To: Dave Taht cc: "dpreed\@reed.com" , "cerowrt-devel\@lists.bufferbloat.net" In-Reply-To: References: <1482522285.920219937@mobile.rackspace.com> X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.6+dev; GNU Emacs 24.5.1 X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m Subject: Re: [Cerowrt-devel] Fwd: License File for Open Source Repositories X-BeenThere: cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: Development issues regarding the cerowrt test router project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2016 20:21:41 -0000 --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain Dave Taht 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 [ --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEbsyLEzg/qUTA43uogItw+93Q3WUFAlhe2NQACgkQgItw+93Q 3WV67QgAk9V5ivmnuVcgtBTfNgFWKrm35ljn72gKQLwDqhYHkzSx20gy322SAD8B BbCi+0/PhgFhev2siSPjIEEpZtwsA71Imr/EX9acM0dX8bvgij5CfEhWKrjQ+q1S uaE4PQbcy513ffpTIdKqaH3e8rcf0lebZ9p7x1x1bAOt2JQFQA0soEdf+eziJtnZ Adh6xBg2h8uleMWBcaY2flq71ecF2PDHpnsRdjwDzuaFifV7/T4elFPJepUjBnoV RBRf6vrIPkZVfFIeAwRsklJY6CCHuMtWD8BnEbaSVYJQgbZS0p5OT81GFNANeSnu bcgIJofBHrkp5C300yLfvVA95lrZ0g== =iUqO -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--