Dennis Ferguson <dennis <at> juniper.net>
2003-01-03 20:54:34 GMT
Frank Cusack wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 27, 2002 at 10:00:33PM -0500, Barney Wolff wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 27, 2002 at 06:45:10PM -0800, Frank Cusack wrote:
> > >
> > > PPTP is not proprietary. L2TP is, though.
> > You seem to have a very odd definition of proprietary. Both protocols
> > are published, but PPTP is strictly under Microsoft's control, while
> > L2TP is a standards-track IETF effort. If sourceforge is your criterion,
> > both protocols are there.
> Yes, I guess I'm using a different (incorrect) definition of proprietary.
> What I really meant was, PPTP is freely implementable. L2TP is not.
> I can write and publish an implementation of PPTP, without being beholden
> to Microsoft whereas I must license L2TP from Cisco. Of course, please
> correct me if Cisco has granted no-cost license terms to anyone for L2TP.
I don't think the latter paragraphs describe the situation. Cisco has
a patent which mentions neither PPTP nor L2TP, but which patents an
application for which either PPTP or L2TP might be used. As such the
patent, if it applies at all, applies equally to PPTP and L2TP when
either is used for the application described in the patent's claims.
PPTP is no less encumbered by this patent than L2TP.
What this amounts to is that if your use of PPTP doesn't infringe on this
patent then using L2TP for the same thing won't either, while if your
use of L2TP does infringe on this patent then changing the protocol
to PPTP won't save you. The patent provides no particular reason to
prefer one protocol over the other since, for applications which