This text does not seem to cover what we usually encounter in protocol development. What happens is that you claim a patent that would be infringed by implementing the protocol. Another company has its own patent that it also claims would be infringed by implementing the protocol. You are willing to grant a worldwide, royalty free license to the patent to anyone, including the other company, so long as the other company doesn't try to force you to pay a royalty or take out a more restrictive license to his patent. Take a look at: http://www.ietf.org/ietf/IPR/DYNAMICSOFT-SIMPLE.txt for an example. Brian > -----Original Message----- > From: RL 'Bob' Morgan [mailto:rlmorgan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Friday, October 15, 2004 1:28 PM > To: Brian Rosen > Cc: IETF > Subject: RE: Shuffle those deck chairs! > > > On Fri, 15 Oct 2004, Brian Rosen wrote: > > > You guys don't have a problem with the "defensive suspension"/"no first > use" > > clauses, do you? > > > > Is there a "preferred" wording for it? > > I think you'll find virtually identical wording on this topic in several > well-known licenses: > > http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 > > http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/MPL-1.1.html > > http://www.eclipse.org/legal/cpl-v10.html > > http://www.opensource.org/licenses/afl-2.1.php > > - RL "Bob" > > _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf