ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: IPR at IETF 54

2002-05-31 13:03:10
Bill Strahm wrote:

On Thu, 30 May 2002, RJ Atkinson wrote:


On Thursday, May 30, 2002, at 09:48 , Melinda Shore wrote:
Here's one for starters: there's no guidance on how or whether to
treat differences in licensing terms for competing proposals.  It
would be nice to be able to say that all other things being more-or-
less equal we should prefer technology which will be available
royalty-free,

      Agree.

      My druthers would be to have an IETF policy explicitly saying that
the first
choice is to use unencumbered technology if it can be made to work,
second choice
is encumbered but royalty-free technology, and last choice is "fair and
reasonable
licence terms" (or whatever the equivalent correct legal wording might be
for that last).

      And it would be good to have a conventional template for the
royalty-free
licence -- one that the IETF's legal counsel has reviewed and believes
is acceptable
for IETF purposes.
I disagree with this, I don't think the IETF can afford to keep a staff of
lawyers working on determining the licencing statements of all of the
standards being churned out.

That said, I don't think it would do any good anyway, lets say the IETF
lawyer gives his Okey Dokie, then my company implements the standard and a
problem with the licencing terms comes up... Who do I go sue, the IETF ???

I hope not, but that could be creating a legal liability for the IETF if
its lawyers make statements on the licencing terms of protocols...

Bill


Bill,

The IETF isn't incorporated, so there is no way it can make such statements.
The IETF's corporate umbrella is the Internet Society. Now I haven't
consulted ISOC's CEO and VPs but I am on pretty safe ground in asserting
that you are correct: ISOC would never accept such a liability. Our
insurance company wouldn't let us.

Brian E Carpenter 
Board Chairman, Internet Society http://www.isoc.org
INET 2002, Washington, DC, 18-21 June http://www.inet2002.org




<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>