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 ?
Thanks
adulau