Absolutely, I have had an attempt to set up a WG explode over the difference.
It would be good to standardize the license terms. What I would like to see is
a Microsoft or an IBM offer the use of existing terms such as they have already
written under a creative commons license. In other words, no discussion, no
interest group, no process, just a 'make use of this if you like'.
We don't all need to use the same set of terms. It is unnecessary for us all to
specify the same objectives in different terms.
Lets push the whole set of IPR issues out to the folk in the creative commons
community who live for such stuff. I would like to be able to call a
pre-standards workshop under IPR terms splunge and for everyone attending to
clearly understand the consequences, obligations etc. that splunge implies and
not have to spend a week educating their corporate lawyers to let them attend.
-----Original Message-----
From: Bernard Aboba [mailto:aboba(_at_)internaut(_dot_)com]
Sent: Friday, May 25, 2007 11:51 PM
To: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: Putting IPR on the IETF consensus proccess (was:
beware of fake pills)
With all due respect, broad defensive non-assert clauses are
quite different from RF licenses. For an analysis of the
differences, see the article below:
http://www.law.uchicago.edu/files/lichtman/def-susp.pdf
Brian Carpenter said:
It's a defensive non-assert disclosure, which IMHO is
equivalent to RF for anyone who plays nicely. Actually a
defensive non-assert may indirectly *protect* a normal
implementor, when you think about its impact on a third party
implementor who does try to assert a patent.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf