On 1/7/10 9:46 AM, Russ Housley wrote: > Andy: > >>> Although this preference cannot guarantee that the working >>> group will produce an unencumbered codec, the working group shall >>> attempt to adhere to the spirit of BCP 79. This preference does not >>> explicitly rule out the possibility of adapting encumbered technologies; >>> such decisions will be made in accordance with the rough consensus of >>> the working group. >> >> I appreciate the potential difficulty of guaranteeing the unencumbered >> status of any output of this group. However, I would like this >> statement to >> be stronger, saying that this group will only produce a new codec if >> it is >> strongly believed by WG rough consensus to either be unencumbered, >> or freely licensed by the IPR holder(s), if any. > > I do not think that anyone wants the outcome to be yet another > encumbered codec. I think these words are trying to say what you want, > but they are also trying to be realistic. > > Does the following text strike a better balance? > > Although this preference cannot guarantee that the working > group will produce an unencumbered codec, the working group shall > follow BCP 79, and adhere to the spirit of BCP 79. The working > group cannot explicitly rule out the possibility of adapting > encumbered technologies; however, the working group will try to > avoid encumbered technologies that require royalties. That seems reasonable. Although I was only the BoF co-chair, I'll volunteer to hold the pen on edits to the proposed charter. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/
<<attachment: smime.p7s>>
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf