netdev - RE: [PATCH 00/05] ipv6: RFC4214 Support

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <39C363776A4E8C4A94691D2BD9D1C9A1029EDBE7@XCH-NW-7V2.nw.nos.boeing.com>
Date:	Wed, 7 Nov 2007 06:41:46 -0800
From:	"Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@...ing.com>
To:	"David Stevens" <dlstevens@...ibm.com>,
	"Pekka Savola" <pekkas@...core.fi>
Cc:	"David Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	<netdev-owner@...r.kernel.org>, <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 00/05] ipv6: RFC4214 Support

I think I can clear this up. The patent office rejected
SRI's patent application, therefore there are no valid
claims that could prevent ISATAP from being included
in public domain software releases. Indeed, Microsoft,
cisco, and FreeBSD/KAME are shipping ISATAP and have
been doing so for a long time, and I believe there are
also several others.

Fred
fred.l.templin@...ing.com

> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Stevens [mailto:dlstevens@...ibm.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2007 11:54 PM
> To: Pekka Savola
> Cc: David Miller; Templin, Fred L; netdev@...r.kernel.org; 
> netdev-owner@...r.kernel.org; yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/05] ipv6: RFC4214 Support
> 
> > give it away on this specific instance.  I'm not sure if you should 
> > attribute to hidden agendas what you can explain by "doing 
> the right 
> > thing" (granted, very few companies do this which may make 
> it suspect, 
> > but still..).
> 
> Pekka,
>         I'm not assuming hidden agendas here; I simply don't know what
> they mean by "no license for implementers."  It doesn't say they
> relinquish *all* licensing, which would be clearer if that's what they
> mean. If implementers, distributors, and users are included, then
> who's left that does need licensing? If that answer really is nobody,
> then why bother with "for implementers."?
>         So, I don't think it's a hidden agenda, I think they said what
> they mean. I just don't know what they mean. :-)
> 
>                                                                 +-DLS
> 
> 
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html