Purpose of this WG

On 2007-01-17 09:41, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
> Harald Alvestrand wrote:
>> are you still talking about the issue of extracting
code from RFCs, or
>> have you switched to talking about the IETF's
patent policy?
> 
> All along in this WG I've been talking about exactly
one thing: The freedom
> to implement any IETF specification under any open
source (and proprietary)
> software license. That's what "open
standards" mean. 

Actually not. "Open standards" is generally taken
to mean
one or both of openly developed and openly available.
Usability for
open source is a joint attribute of the standard and the
technology
it describes.

> Nothing else really
> matters. That is the sole purpose for revising the IETF
IP policy. 

That may be your sole purpose. As far as I know, the
purpose
is exclusively defined at
h
ttp://www.ietf.org/html.charters/ipr-charter.html. As
the chairs
have said, when that charter has been executed, the IETF
will
need to determine whether the WG should be closed, or
rechartered
for new work.

> That is
> the sole reason for IETF.

The IETF's mission is defined in RFC 3935 and is not what
you say.
And this is definitely not the list to discuss the IETF's
mission.
> 
> It was not me but others here who insisted on
transforming this discussion
> into one about unhelpful distinctions between
"code" and "text," and on the
> unhelpful concept of "extracting code" to
"make/use." The bigger issue is
> putting software (whether derived from code or text in
an IETF specification
> or an original implementation of that specification) to
work. That's why I
> have insisted all along not only upon a compatible IETF
contributor
> *copyright* license, but an IETF contributor *patent*
license that allows
> everyone to make and use software-based products that
implement IETF
> specifications. (I have written MANY emails on this
topic; I have not
> switched to a new topic!)

But, it's a topic that is out of scope in this WG at this
time.

Note, if there was an emerging consensus among active
technical
participants in the IETF for a change in our patent policy,
that would
be a very legitimate proposal for a General Area BOF. I
don't exclude
that happening, but for the last ten years or so we haven't
seen
such a consensus form.

<snip>

> The problem became clear to me again two days ago when
Simon wrote that this
> WG may punt the entire issue to another group, the IETF
Trust, which will
> decide something in private later. That's not an
acceptable result. 

You misunderstand. The plan of record is that when this WG
(mainly
active IETF engineers) has decided the effects it wishes the
copyright
language to produce, and the IETF has reached general
consensus on
that, then the IETF Trust, which is a servant of the IETF,
will take
legal advice to craft the necessary legal language.

     Brian

_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wgietf.org
https:/
/www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg