Re: [Softwarepatents] [Patents] TODAY/URGENT: Stop IETF Enactment of Patented Standard for TLS

[Benjamin Henrion <bh@udev.org>]

On Sat, Feb 14, 2009 at 11:03 AM, Thomas Warwaris <thomas@warwaris.at> wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-02-12 at 11:56 +0100, Jonas Maebe wrote:
>>
>> Mail bombing campaigns are seldom a good idea.
>
> For campaigners, there is more to learn from that "how not to do it"
> example. It is about building "us" and "them".
>
> Was this FSF campain ever intended to change any policy? What could have
> been the plan? The IETF reactions intended?
> Or was it about using IETF to create two illusions for the FSF:
>
> 1.) The illusion that there is an enemy.
> That is a very common illusion used for defining the self image of
> groups and individuals.
> 2.) The illusion of "having done something".
>
> But this example is more, because it illustrates so clearly how they
> were able to get what they ordered from IETF:
>
> Step one: They define the IETF as "them" - it does not matter that such
> a "them" really exists, because it will exist after.
>
> Step two: Then they call for action to communicate (read: fight) with
> "them".
>
> Step three: The reactions they get, are used to prove the illusion of
> "them". Again: It does not matter what the reactions really are about.
>
> But on the other end of the communication, the FSF has now built up a
> clear anti-FSF position along (working) members of the IETF.
>
> Because they gave them a "us" and "them (spammers)".
> So by now the FSF has got, what it is really happy about: "them"?
>
> Did i miss something?

What the IETF will have to say is read RFCXXXX about patent policy.

You will end up in the same fights as you had in 2001 over W3C patent
policy of RAND vs RF.

This is issue should trigger a change in the patent policy of IETF.

Otherwise IETF will end up looking not so different of other standards
orgs: not serving the public interest, but the interests of a few.

--
Benjamin Henrion <bhenrion at ffii.org>
FFII Brussels - +32-484-566109 - +32-2-4148403