Could you try to argue the facts or at least logical inferences that might be drawn from what I've said. Did I ever say OSS developers should implement it, no - I've said some might be able to under the licenses they use.

But that isn't true--you cannot have a piece of open source software (i.e., something that meets the definition of open source) that incorporates patented technology that requires developers to execute individual patent licensing agreements with Microsoft.

I don't want nor can I impose anything on OSS developers. I'm not afraid to come out and say anything I believe I just don't happen to believe the words you are trying to stick into my mouth.

It's clear that you feel uncomfortable with when I restate your position in the way I did. What I am saying is that I think your position amounts to that: you think OSS developers should consider incorporating such licenseable technology into their software. You just don't recognize that such a suggestion is pretty much the same as if you said "guys, why don't you consider giving up on this OSS stuff altogether and just develop proprietary software". Your intention may not be to say something so obviously controversial to OSS developers, but that's what it amounts to.

And I believe you when you say that you personally are in a position to impose anything on OSS developers (that's why I said "people like you"). But your view reflects the views that the IETF committee members have stated regarding these kind of licenses, and the IETF is indeed trying to use its clout as a standards body to change the way OSS developers develop software. But, like you, the IETF is apparently unwilling to state clearly that their position is the same as basically telling OSS developers "we don't want you to implement our standards under OSS licenses".