The question is whether in the light of the SCO vs IBM case the reciprocity
clauses actually have the intended effect.
Having been involved in the license issues surrounding WS-* I do not beleive
that it is possible to construct an open license that is compatible with open
source practices and is reliably effective in preventing litigation from
parties that are using the technology without reciprocation.
Fortunately it turns out that this is not a requirement. Open Source projects
do not want a license, and the IPR holder don't actually want to have to issue
one. All that everyone wants in this is to not get sued. So the Microsoft Open
Promise type approach is definitely the one that we should be looking to adopt
What would be useful is if we had a small number of standard legal
deeds/licenses/contracts/whatever released under a creative commons type
license for this type of arrangement.
If there were in addition some standard non disclosure contracts, standard
contracts for holding pre-standards meeting and the like the result could be
turned into a book which most managers in the valley would probably end up
From: Ted Hardie [mailto:hardie(_at_)qualcomm(_dot_)com]
Sent: Fri 19/10/2007 5:32 PM
To: lrosen(_at_)rosenlaw(_dot_)com; ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Cc: 'Contreras, Jorge'
Subject: RE: A priori IPR choices [Re: Third Last
At 1:58 PM -0700 10/19/07, Ted Hardie wrote:
Cisco has probably disclosed the most patents in an
IETF context (163 disclosures in any case; I'm having trouble getting the
tool to give me comparisons), but its licenses don't seem to have allowed
both open source and proprietary implementations.
My apologies for the major typo. I meant "don't seem to have prevented".
Sorry for the goof,
Ietf mailing list
Ietf mailing list