ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: IPR Re: IETF 54 calendar (fwd)

2002-05-29 12:42:37
Alexandre Dulaunoy wrote:
On Wed, 29 May 2002, Melinda Shore wrote:

At 11:03 AM 5/29/02 +0200, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
I think it's pretty clear. That doesn't mean it doesn't
cause confusion, because it certainly does. There is a strong
case for an informational document and presentation to try to
get rid of the confusion, but that doesn't need a meeting or a WG.

I really think that it depends on your definition of "pretty
clear."  Aside from situations in which some competing technologies
are encumbered and some are not, we're now finding ourselves in
situations where all of the proposed technologies are encumbered
but have different licensing terms.  I think that a new
informational
document would benefit a great deal from real-time discussion, etc.,
if for no other reason to see which questions are raised.  A Friday
meeting seems to me to be a rather small one-time cost for getting
more clarity around the issue.

Melinda


Yes, a lot of discussion will come about "IPR".

For example, the case of VRRP is not really solved ;-).

Cisco says that a RAND (reasonable and non-discriminatory) is
available.
But for example, for the Free Software developers (for
example : released
under the GNU General Public License) need a RF (Royalty-free
license).
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#RAND

We have contacted Cisco Inc. several time about that without
getting any
feedback regarding the RF license. http://www.ael.be/node.php?id=52

I think a method for Free Software developers should be created inside
the IETF (because implementations of draft/RFC are often Free
Software).
Also a correct terminology should be in place. (RF / RAND /
type of Licensing...)

What do you think about that ?


As I recall, RAND was explicitly selected over RF because there are and
will be technologies that are interesting to incorporate in a
system-wide standard approach, and forcing RF terms would automatically
exclude those. There is enough of a bias in the participants toward RF
when available, that explicit language requiring it adds no value and in
some cases actually subtracts value from the process of achieving
consensus.

If what you are asking for is that for every proposal / i-d that shows
up in the IETF, the IPR holder is automatically required to provide an
RF license, you really don't understand the reason people bother with
patents to begin with.

Tony