IETF IP Contribution Policy

On Fri, Jan 19, 2007 at 01:31:59PM -0500,
 John C Klensin <john-ietfjck.com> wrote 
 a message of 106 lines which said:

> > The Apache Software Foundation demands that. W3C
and Oasis demand
> > that. Why shouldn't IETF?
...
> ANSI does not demand it.  IEEE does not demand it.  ISO
does not
> demand it and ITU doesn't either.  Very few of the ISO
national
> Member Bodies demand it.

Well summarized: some SDO are open, distribute freely their
work and
publish standards that are widely used on the Internet. Some
SDOs are
closed, and love failed standards that were never adopted,
often
because of restrictions they put on standards distribution.

You're right, this is the core issue: on which side does the
IETF
stand?

> One nice thing about a consortium model is that it is
clear that
> enterprises and individuals that do not share the
consortium's
> specific goals, objectives, and, often, intended
methods (I'm
> tempted to add "religion") are not welcome
and typically don't join
> or are quickly eased out.

This deserves the price of the best pleonasm of the year:
let's
rephrase it. For any Organization (a church, a SDO, a
political party,
a non-profit charity), enterprises and individuals that do
not share
the Organization goals are not welcome. This is hardly
specific of the
W3C or Oasis or ASF or FSF or IETF.




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

Stephane you speak of

> This deserves the price of the best pleonasm of the
year: let's
> rephrase it. For any Organization (a church, a SDO, a
political party,
> a non-profit charity), enterprises and individuals that
do not share
> the Organization goals are not welcome. This is hardly
specific of the
> W3C or Oasis or ASF or FSF or IETF.

No it is exactly true - and wize guy - if this WG had any
integrity at all 
it would stop trying to make changes to the IETF that the
membership as a 
whole of the people participating in the IETF did not vote
on...

So - its really the IPR WG that is the problem here in that
it is trying to 
make changes to the substantive process of the IETF without
the approval of 
any of the working members.

This IETF needs open elections and open processes.

Todd Glassey

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Stephane Bortzmeyer" <bortzmeyernic.fr>
To: "John C Klensin" <john-ietfjck.com>
Cc: <lrosenrosenlaw.com>; <ipr-wgietf.org>
Sent: Monday, January 22, 2007 1:55 AM
Subject: Re: IETF IP Contribution Policy


> On Fri, Jan 19, 2007 at 01:31:59PM -0500,
> John C Klensin <john-ietfjck.com> wrote
> a message of 106 lines which said:
>
>> > The Apache Software Foundation demands that.
W3C and Oasis demand
>> > that. Why shouldn't IETF?
> ...
>> ANSI does not demand it.  IEEE does not demand it. 
ISO does not
>> demand it and ITU doesn't either.  Very few of the
ISO national
>> Member Bodies demand it.
>
> Well summarized: some SDO are open, distribute freely
their work and
> publish standards that are widely used on the Internet.
Some SDOs are
> closed, and love failed standards that were never
adopted, often
> because of restrictions they put on standards
distribution.
>
> You're right, this is the core issue: on which side
does the IETF
> stand?
>
>> One nice thing about a consortium model is that it
is clear that
>> enterprises and individuals that do not share the
consortium's
>> specific goals, objectives, and, often, intended
methods (I'm
>> tempted to add "religion") are not
welcome and typically don't join
>> or are quickly eased out.
>
> This deserves the price of the best pleonasm of the
year: let's
> rephrase it. For any Organization (a church, a SDO, a
political party,
> a non-profit charity), enterprises and individuals that
do not share
> the Organization goals are not welcome. This is hardly
specific of the
> W3C or Oasis or ASF or FSF or IETF.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ipr-wg mailing list
> Ipr-wgietf.org
> https:/
/www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg 


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

--On Monday, 22 January, 2007 10:55 +0100 Stephane
Bortzmeyer
<bortzmeyernic.fr> wrote:

>> ANSI does not demand it.  IEEE does not demand it. 
ISO does
>> not demand it and ITU doesn't either.  Very few of
the ISO
>> national Member Bodies demand it.
> 
> Well summarized: some SDO are open, distribute freely
their
> work and publish standards that are widely used on the
> Internet. Some SDOs are closed, and love failed
standards that
> were never adopted, often because of restrictions they
put on
> standards distribution.
> 
> You're right, this is the core issue: on which side
does the
> IETF stand?

Hmm.

First, let's not confuse restrictions on the distribution of
the
standards themselves (which the IETF certainly does not have
and
never has had) with the _possibility_ of encumbrances on
the
technology of those standards.  I suggest it makes a
difference.

With regard to the standards bodies having a policy that
permits
standards to use patented technology --whether the
particular
standard does or not-- you mean, for example, standards
that
fail and are never adopted such as
  Ethernet
  802.11 a / b / g / x etc
  ISO 636, 646, 3166, 8859, 10646, most of the programming
languages, floppy disks, ... to say nothing of a huge series
of
things in areas unrelated to information technology (start
with
motorcycle helmets and sensitivity of photographic
materials,
tedious list of examples on request).  I note that most of
the
IT  standards on that list have open source implementations
or
applications.

If course, the documents describing many or most of those
are
also available only for purchase at high prices.

I don't know the details of the policies and situation with
AFNOR or CEN/CENELEC but, in general, national and regional
standards for building and fire protection codes,
typewriter
keyboards, tire (tyre) dimensions and properties, paper
sizes,
electrical connectors, and so on would also, given your
comment,
be expected to be failures that were never adopted...

My reality seems to differ a bit from yours in this area.
Perhaps that is part of the problem.

     john


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