> From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] 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@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf