>>>>> "Peter" == Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
Peter> 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.
I agree with the concerns that Stephan expressed. Royalties are only
one source of significant problems.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf