In
<D96522A138F4D4479CB5F7F583B98F057B46FE(_at_)df-chewy-msg(_dot_)exchange(_dot_)corp(_dot_)microsoft(_dot_)com>
"Harry Katz" <hkatz(_at_)exchange(_dot_)microsoft(_dot_)com> writes:
On Tuesday, August 24, 2004 12:36 AM, Roy Arends wrote:
On Mon, 23 Aug 2004, Harry Katz wrote:
The following IPR disclosure statement was sent to
statements(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
earlier today.
What I'm concerned about is that licensing of technology
developed and published through the IETF sets a precedent.
We'll be drifting from the mudpool to the quicksand.
There are dozens and dozens of IETF specifications that have associated
IPR claims. Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/ipr.html for a current
list.
There are, indeed, many other RFCs that have IPR claims. Several
points, however:
1) Many people are not happy about this situation. (IIRC, there is an
IETF IPR mailing for such discussions.)
2) Not all licenses are equal. For example, Cisco's patent license on
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/IPR/cisco-ipr-draft-fenton-identified-mail-00.txt
seems *much* more reasonable to me than MS's license for SenderID.
(In particular, requiring a signed license for source code
distributions is very burdensome.)
3) To quote directly from RFC3668 section 8:
| 8. Evaluating alternative technologies in IETF working groups
|
| In general, IETF working groups prefer technologies with no known IPR
| claims or, for technologies with claims against them, an offer of
| royalty-free licensing. But IETF working groups have the discretion
| to adopt technology with a commitment of fair and non-discriminatory
| terms, or even with no licensing commitment, if they feel that this
| technology is superior enough to alternatives with fewer IPR claims
| or free licensing to outweigh the potential cost of the licenses.
So, the question is: are there alternatives to the PRA that don't
have the burden of IPR licenses and work just as well if not better?
I think the answer to that is clearly yes. More over, I think the
only reason why those alternatives have not been more fully explored
is because it was assumed that Microsoft would make a license
available that would not be burdensom.
-wayne