Interesting People mailing list archives
Re: TODAY: Stop IETF Enactment of Patented Standard for TLS
From: David Farber <dave () farber net>
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 14:33:08 -0500
Begin forwarded message: From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <smb () cs columbia edu> Date: February 11, 2009 12:08:58 PM EST To: dave () farber netSubject: Re: [IP] TODAY: Stop IETF Enactment of Patented Standard for TLS
There is, in my opinion, a considerable amount of confusion here. This paragraph illustrates my point.
If our voice is strong enough, the IETF will not approve this standard on any level unless the patent threat is removed entirely with a royalty-free license for all users.
For better or worse, the IETF has never accepted that "royalty-free" is a precondition for standardizing something. The full details are in RFC 3979 (updated by RFC 4879); briefly, though, participants in a discussion are obligated to disclose any IPR they have that bears on the discussion; additionally, third parties who are aware of patents that bear on some topic are encouraged to file third-party disclosures. The working group participants -- and the IETF community -- make individual decisions on the likely validity and applicability of the patents, and on the tradeoffs between the utility of the encumbered technology versus the costs and hassles of dealing with patent licenses. (Note: I was an IESG member and co-chair of the IETF's IPR working group during much of the time these RFCs were adopted. The basics of that policy antedate my tenure, and continue to this day.) Given this, the statement "the IETF should not standardize draft-chthulhu-shogoth-666.txt because the technology is patented" is a NOP according to IETF policies on patented works. The proper formulation is "I feel that standardizing draft-chthulhu-shogoth-666.txt is a bad idea because in this particular case, the licensing terms are too onerous for the benefit gained", perhaps with a suggestion that some other technology be adopted instead. For the IESG to reject a standard based on statements like this:
We depend on organizations like the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) and the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG) to evaluate new proposals for standards and make sure that they are not encumbered by patents or any other sort of restriction that would prevent free software users and programmers from participating in the world they define.
would be to go against the overwhelming consensus of the IETF when 3979 was adopted. (I was at the microphone to run the in-meeting "hum" and personally conducted the "e-hum" of the mailing list. While a lot of people in the free software movement were very unhappy with the outcome -- and yes, with the IETF leadership, including me, for opposing a royalty-free standard -- I've never heard anyone claim that the hums were misrepresented or in any way conducted in contravention to long-standing IETF procedure. I don't know why this particular document has been singled out by the FSF. I suspect it's because of its long, tangled history of IPR disclosures; see the IESG's statement (included in the FSF message) for a brief summary of the issues. But opposing just this document because you don't like software patents in general is fruitless. (It may also be counterproductive, in that the flood of drive-by messages saying "don't approve this because software patents are evil" has irritated a lot of people. I hope, though, that the IESG will not base its decision on annoyance.) The obvious thing for me to say next is "if you don't like the IETF's patent policy, try to change it rather than targeting a relatively minor draft". From my perspective as a one-time insider -- I resigned from the IESG and as IPR co-chair about 4 years ago, and have not tracked the IETF particularly closely since then -- I doubt it would be a fruitful course to pursue. Quite simply, I don't think that the opinions of the IETF community have changed much on this point in the years since the current policies were adopted. I suspect that a better idea would be a two-fold effort: to get rid of bad patents, and to propose unencumbered alternative technologies. To be precise, look at the goals of a particular encumbered draft and craft a new document that does substantially the same thing but avoids the patent. This latter statement doesn't mean "post a single note to the mailing list saying "use X instead of Y" -- it means write an Internet Draft, tell the working group about it, present it (or arrange to have it presented) at WG meetings, stay engaged on the mailing list -- and base your arguments on something other than "patents are evil". --Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb ------------------------------------------- Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/ Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Current thread:
- TODAY: Stop IETF Enactment of Patented Standard for TLS David Farber (Feb 11)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: TODAY: Stop IETF Enactment of Patented Standard for TLS David Farber (Feb 11)