[WSIS CS-Plenary] PCT and WGIG

[avri at acm.org]

On 16 jan 2005, at 09.39, Beatriz Busaniche wrote:

> Just don't go
> around telling people that your ideas are those of the free software
> movement before checking with us first, thank you.

Am I to understand that the Free Software Foundation is the free 
software movement and that there is no free software movement outside 
of the FSF?

If not, then it seems that people can be part of the free software 
movement without belonging to FSF or to the FOSS caucus. And it seems 
that they can have ideas on free software and the movement that have 
not been vetted with you.

For my part, having no desire to comment on the morality of either the 
FSF or of Maoists, I consider myself a fellow traveller of the free 
software movement.  I support the sentiments and many of the overall 
goals,  but not necessarily all the positions taken.  And while I will 
never identify myself as a representative of the movement, i am 
generally sympathetic to its positions.  I would personally find it 
helpful to see short position papers contributed to the WGIG process on 
some of the specific issues, outlined in
      http://www.wgig.org/docs/inventory-issues.html
that discuss the specific FSF/FOSS concerns and viewpoints.  I am 
especially interested in the position on Technical Standards.

As part of full disclosure and in the attempt to address an actual 
issue, I am an IETF participant who, recently, has come to accept the 
IETF's policy and practice (defined in RFCs 3905, 3667-3669). Though I 
would prefer for us to select only encumbrance free technologies. I 
accept this policy because the realities of engineering practice seem 
to make it necessary and because full determination of degree of 
encumbrance is very difficult in practice.  As an IETF WG chair or 
editor, I would always work to find a technology that was encumbrance 
free. But I would not raise rough consensus breaking objections if the 
installed base was already using a technology that was either available 
under a GNU type license or under any of the  less onerous conditions, 
e.g.:

- No License Required for Implementers
- Royalty-Free, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory License to All 
Implementers

or even on occasion

- Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory License to All Implementers with 
Possible Royalty/Fee.

On the other hand, as a researcher developing technology for network 
challenged areas on the other side of the digital divide, i will use no 
technology that is encumbered by anything more the a GNU type license.

What I have not been able to understand is how a commitment to never 
using encumbered technology can work in the complex international 
Internet, which is constrained by a multitude of conflicting claims and 
legacy technology.  My primary concern is that on occasion this would 
leave us without useable, or deployed, standards in areas where such 
standards are necessary.

thanks
a.