Re: draft-housley-two-maturity-levels

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 





On 1/26/2011 7:29 PM, Scott O. Bradner wrote:
2/ I think the proposal must specifically deal with the 2026 IPR licence
    requirement in section 4.1.2

       If patented or otherwise controlled technology
       is required for implementation, the separate implementations must
       also have resulted from separate exercise of the licensing process.

    The requirement can be dealt with by explicitly discarding
    it or by including it. But not mentioning the requirement does
    not make the issue go away.  This requirement was, in theory, a
    way to keep the IETF/IESG out of the business of evaluating
    the fairness of licensing terms.  I can remember only
    one time it came up (in an appeal) so getting rid of it may
    be fine - but don't make it look like it was just forgotten.


Please note that this reply is only about Scott's friendly amendment for one added sentence to cover "interoperability" about IPR:

+1

It's terse, relevant and seems pragmatic.

d/

--

  Dave Crocker
  Brandenburg InternetWorking
  bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]