--On 8. september 2005 20:08 -0700 "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <pbaker@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I didn't see the original note -- if it was from whom I think it was, my killfile took care of that -- but for a more authoritative description of the situation, see the first two paragraphs of Section 2 of RFC 3669.Without wanting to engage the dispute ove minutes I think that it would be useful if the IETF had a definition of an 'open patent license' even if WGs were not required to insist on it.
I agree - and I think the IPR WG's mailing list is the right place to have the public discussion of that issue.
Unfortunately efforts to write a candidate license have fizzled out numerous times in the past - partly because it's genuinely hard to do, partly because the lawyers who might write it see some legal risk in trying to write one (they fear being accused of trying to bias such a license to their particular ends), partly because the acrimony surrounding this issue has been rather uncomfortable, to say the least, in past discussions.
May be time to try again - I think it's definitely needed.
Harald
Attachment:
pgpYUnAFNkFWj.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf