Re: Draining the Swamp: A Technical User's Experience

[Richard Stallman <rms gnu org>]

	  implement, use and distribute the technology or works when
	  implementing, using or distributing technology based upon the
	  specific specification(s) under openly specified, reasonable,
	  non-discriminatory terms.

This is what most standards bodies do.  "Reasonable,
non-discriminatory terms" often require payment of a fee per copy.
That discriminates against free software, which in my view is not
reasonable; thus, these terms are truly neither reasonable nor
non-discriminatory.  But the point is that you the IETF policy says it
can approve a standard that we are not allowed to implemenmt in free
software.

This is not directly related to GNOME, but it may have a major effect
on what can be done in GNOME--and in GNU as a whole, and in other free
software projects.

Meanwhile, Jim Gettys said:

    They avoid using patents that aren't free as much as possible.
    Sometimes it has been impossible, but not often; it
    is only done as last resort, and I mean *last* resort.

That is quite different from what their formal statement says.
Perhaps this is an informal policy.  If so, I am glad they make the
effort--but they really should not consider the restrictive patent
license even as a last resort.  When a businessman knows you are
willing to accept that as a last resort, he is encouraged to insist on
it.

In any negotiation, if the other party knows your bottom line, that
puts you at a disadvantage--he knows he can demand that much and you
will eventually give in.

    Often the technique will be patented, but a license will be granted
    to all comers to use the patent to implement the standard.

Unfortunately, this license doesn't actually allow free software.
Free software means users are free to modify the program.  A patent
license with that condition restricts modification so much (any
user-visible incompatible change is prohibited) thatyou don't really
have the freedom to modify, which means the program is not free
software.

The FSF believes it conflicts with the GPL also: the patent license
substantively denies the section 2 freedoms, so the "liberty or death"
clause (section 7) comes into play.

People have been putting a lot of pressure on the W3C to adopt a
policy of rejecting such patent licenses.  It would be good to put
pressure on the IETF to take a firmer stand.