Original:
| On Oct 29, 2004, at 12:44 PM, James Couzens wrote:
|
| > I would consider DK before SenderID, its most certainly more mature and
| > it also hasn't spent the last ~6 months beating around the proverbial
| > bush debating stupid software patents.
|
| I don't know what you mean by "debating", but you might want to take a
| closer look at the IPR disclosures page.
|
| -andy
My answer (corrected spelling, missing word):
| Andrew, you should know quite well by now that just IPR disclosure
| is not enough and until we actually see the license the patent
| issue is still there.
Andrew Newton's answer to above:
Are we talking about the same thing?
Yes we're talking about same thing. You seem to have applied that for
WG to deal with patents most important is the IPR and then the debate
and issue is over. Its actually been backwards - we knew from the start
the IPR is there but the debate was not about the existance of the IPR,
but about the license.
Now some in IETF might say that IPR disclosure already provides information
about what kind of license it would be (i.e free for all, etc) but it
appears that disclosure in the IPR document is not enough and until we
actually see the license, the WG can't be sure how much of an issue the
patent is and this may result in intense debates at the very crucial point
of the WG's work cycle.
--
William Leibzon
Elan Networks
william(_at_)elan(_dot_)net