From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On
Behalf Of Frank Ellermann
Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
I note that the W3C policy is distributed under a creative commons
license. I suggest that future WGs adopt it as is when they
make their
charter proposals. Otherwise they are likely to find
themselves in the
same position that MARID did.
FWIW, I looked into the W3C policy once, and "think" it's fine.
IANAL, but hope that the IPR WG uses CC among others as input.
Better to just copy it wholesale, it is under a CC license.
If the IETF defines a different policy it will have to be lawyered
again. It will also mean that any precedent established wrt to IETF IPR
will have to be re-evaluated in the context of W3C and vice versa. We
get much better bang for the buck by adopting existing legal standards
rather than inventing our own.
(And yes, I was one of the people behind E-Terms many years ago which
was a project to propose exactly that, standard contract terms similar
to incoterms)
Most SPF and PRA issues are and were _technical_ from my POV.
Your chances to find any statement from me saying something
else are slim: The idea to "patent" PRA is just bogus.
But if you do not patent then someone else will read the spec and patent
it themselves. It has happened numerous times.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf