The question is whether in the light of the SCO vs IBM case the reciprocity clauses actually have the intended effect.
Having been involved in the license issues surrounding WS-* I do not beleive that it is possible to construct an open license that is compatible with open source practices and is reliably effective in preventing litigation from parties that are using the technology without reciprocation.
Fortunately it turns out that this is not a requirement. Open Source projects do not want a license, and the IPR holder don't actually want to have to issue one. All that everyone wants in this is to not get sued. So the Microsoft Open Promise type approach is definitely the one that we should be looking to adopt going forward.
What would be useful is if we had a small number of standard legal deeds/licenses/contracts/whatever released under a creative commons type license for this type of arrangement.
If there were in addition some standard non disclosure contracts, standard contracts for holding pre-standards meeting and the like the result could be turned into a book which most managers in the valley would probably end up buying.
From: Ted Hardie [mailto:hardie@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Fri 19/10/2007 5:32 PM
To: lrosen@xxxxxxxxxxxx; ietf@xxxxxxxx
Cc: 'Contreras, Jorge'
Subject: RE: A priori IPR choices [Re: Third Last Call:draft-housley-tls-authz-extns]
At 1:58 PM -0700 10/19/07, Ted Hardie wrote:
>Cisco has probably disclosed the most patents in an
>IETF context (163 disclosures in any case; I'm having trouble getting the
>tool to give me comparisons), but its licenses don't seem to have allowed
>both open source and proprietary implementations.
My apologies for the major typo. I meant "don't seem to have prevented".
Sorry for the goof,
Ted
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf