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