Mike,
Answer from a 10Km altitude perspective...
Our rules do not have dependencies on particular licensing
terms, whether RAND, free license, free without any notification
or specific license, defensive/reciprocal, or otherwise. The
obligation of authors and companies is to disclose whatever it
is they need to disclose and, optionally whatever licensing
terms they feel they want to disclose along with it. After
that, it is up to the WG and, ultimately, the community on Last
Call. Absolutely nothing in the rules would prohibit us from
standardizing a technology that requires an expensive license,
negotiated on an individual basis and with no promises of fair
or equitable treatment for license applicants.
In practice, I have doubts that any technology with those sorts
of restrictions would actually be standardized by the IETF
community, but there is no formal bar to trying (or to
identifying an I-D with an intended Standards-Track status).
john
--On Wednesday, June 22, 2011 11:11 -0400 Michael StJohns
<mstjohns(_at_)comcast(_dot_)net> wrote:
A quick couple of questions to the list based on a document I
saw recently.
If a document (an ID in this case) contains encumbered
material (in this case consists of 90%+ encumbered material),
and the document is authored by the organization (or members
of the organization) that holds the encumbrance, should the
document contain an IPR disclosure itself or is it sufficient
to submit a IPR disclosure through the IETF web interface?
Should the ID Nits tool check for the inclusion of the notices
for IPR required by section 5.1 of RFC 3978?
If a document contains primarily encumbered material, is
authored by the owner of the encumbered material or its
employees and is a non-work group document, is it appropriate
to tag such document as "Intended Status: Standards Track"?
For the first question, RFC3979 appears to say no. However,
I'm not sure the specific case I cite was considered.
For the last question - my guess is that it depends -
specifically on the grant of license for the encumbered
material and whether or not there are alternatives. Given
that, would RAND terms be sufficient in any case to advance
this as a standard?
Thanks - Mike
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf