- From: Lisa Dusseault <lisa.dusseault@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2009 03:05:53 -0700
- To: Robert Sayre <sayrer@gmail.com>
- Cc: Atom-Syntax Syntax <atom-syntax@imc.org>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 7:07 PM, Robert Sayre <sayrer@gmail.com> wrote: > At least, that's supposedly one of the good parts of the IETF. The > main bad part is an amoral attitude regarding software patents, to the > point that some Areas operate on the assumption that every participant > has cross-licensed everyone else's patents, so that the industry > status quo is preserved. In the Applications Area, I think an upfront > royalty-free policy should be required (I would be surprised to find > my employer, Mozilla Corporation, disagreeing). I have looked into this (well before this message and talked to may people) and can't see a way to have such a policy in the Applications Area. Certainly such a policy shouldn't be unilaterally enforced by Area Directors, and the IETF consensus process doesn't really have any levels other than Working Group or IETF wide. As we've discussed, an up-front royalty-free policy can be agreed on in any WG at any time by WG consensus, and most WGs end up with a after-the-fact royalty-free policy if the issue ever comes up. In looking into this, I found that even with such a policy, another problem that's subtle (not just in IETF but true in many organizations) is dealing with licenses which are not boilerplate. Unfortunately when IPR holders file an IETF disclosure (see https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/new-specific/) they don't tend to choose the boilerplate options because none of the boilerplate options offers a reciprocity clause. I haven't been able to make progress on this because I've been unemployed for 3 months and that tends to mean poor access to lawyers. I would be happy to have community help with this effort. Lisa
Received on Friday, 25 September 2009 10:09:29 UTC