--On Saturday, 31 March, 2007 08:49 -0400 Scott W Brim
<swb@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 03/30/2007 13:56 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
>> For whatever it is worth, I think we need to step carefully
>> around the distinction Paul makes above: there are almost
>> certainly circumstances in which we should accept a broader
>> grant of rights conditional on standardization and a narrower
>> one if the technology is not standardized. I wish the IPR WG
>> were paying a bit more attention to this sort of issue.
>
> This is a WG decision. IPR WG could produce guidance on the
> subject, but that's all. What are you looking for?
While I have an opinion on this particular case, I am more
concerned about our precedents and decision-making processes
than I am about it. Paul's note seemed to be saying "the IETF
should never accept material if IPR conditions are contingent on
standardization". I don't know if that is what he intended, but
I consider such a principle to be dangerous to us if
generalized".
I believe that any time the IETF considers adoption of an
encumbered technology we need to weight importance of
standardizing any technology in the area and the availability of
alternatives against the particular encumbrances. I believe
that is the case whether the issue is particular IPR terms (such
as RAND iff standardization) or the specifics of the
encumbrances. I believe that decision ultimately has to be an
IETF one, not merely that of an individual WG.
But I believe that advice from the appropriate WG is useful to
the community in determining whether something should be
standardized in spite of the IPR entanglements. To some extent,
if a WG is given the opportunity to examine a particular
proposal and chooses to not take it up and comment, that
provides part of the answer: absent strong evidence from other
sources, the proposal isn't valuable enough to standardize
especially given IPR restrictions.
> On 03/30/2007 14:36 PM, Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote:
>> If the IPR issues are the sole remaining factor in the IETF's
>> decision as to whether to make a protocol a standard, then I
>> think it is entirely reasonable for the IETF to consider an
>> offer which would eliminate or at least mitigate those issues
>> if the protocol were to become a standard.
>
> As Spencer pointed out, text like "If included in a standard"
> is common. We already do this implicitly.
Indeed.
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf