On Jan 26, 2012, at 9:26 41PM, Ted Hardie wrote: > On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 5:50 PM, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> I am not a lawyer, but I don't think the license terms are at issue >> here. As I understand it, the terms that Huawei has been specifying >> in its disclosures are defensive, and shouldn't restrict standards >> implementations. The issue we're discussing isn't the terms, but that >> the disclosures weren't made when they should have been. >> > > While I appreciate the recitation of unfortunate events that led us > here, I don't quite share the view that the license terms are not at > issue here. The reason that we have an IPR rule that asks us to > declare what the terms of a license are is so that the working groups' > members can evaluate both the applicability of the potentially > encumbering patents and the terms of the license. Yes, precisely. This is spelled out quite explicitly in Sections 5.2 and 5.3 of RFC 3669, and Section 6.5 of 3979. --Steve Bellovin, https://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf