|
Jari
I agree with the proposed resolutions , but would like to reply
on three points:
On 22/02/2017 21:40, Jari Arkko wrote:
* Question from Stewart Bryant on Jan 24, regarding
item B in
Section 3.3:
B. Such Contributor represents
that there are no limits to the
Contributor's ability to make
the grants, acknowledgments and
agreements herein that are
reasonably and personally known to the
Contributor.
SB> I do not understand what
point B above means.
It means that if you (for instance) make an IPR
declaration
and say something about the license conditions, you
or whoever
is helping you to make that statement, can actually
make those
statements.
I don’t think a document change is needed.
I am suspect that I am not alone in finding the original legal
language
impenetrable, whilst finding your explanatory text crystal clear. I
would
request you take a another look at this point, perhaps adding your
text
by way of clarification.
* Question from Stewart Bryant on Jan 24, regarding
Section
5.7:
5.7. Disclosures for Oral
Contributions.
.... then the Contributor must
accompany
such oral Contribution with an
oral declaration that he/she is aware
of relevant IPR in as much
detail as reasonably possible
SB> I do not recall ever seeing
a purely verbal disclosure, and wonder
SB> what the process is, how
this is archived and how it is discovered?
Sometimes it happens that a presenter makes a
statement,
e.g. that the audience should note that some IPRs may
apply
and that a written declaration is forthcoming.
I suppose the requirement would that the WG take particular care to
minute the IPR
disclosure so it is on record. At least if it is the minutes it is
searchable and from
the minutes you can get to the recoding to get the exact words.
* Suggestion from Stewart Bryant on Jan 24, regarding
Section
5.5:
5.5. Licensing Information in an
IPR Disclosure
A. Since IPR disclosures will be
used by IETF working groups during
their evaluation of
alternative technical solutions, it is helpful
if an IPR disclosure includes
information about licensing of the
IPR in case Implementing
Technologies require a license.
Specifically, it is helpful
to indicate whether, upon approval by
the IESG for publication as
an RFC of the relevant IETF
specification(s), all persons
will be able to obtain the right to
implement, use, distribute
and exercise other rights with respect
to an Implementing Technology
a) under a royalty-free and
otherwise reasonable and non-
discriminatory license, or b) under
a license that contains
reasonable and non-discriminatory terms
and conditions, including a
reasonable royalty or other payment,
or c) without the need to
obtain a license from the IPR holder
(e.g., a covenant not to
sue).
SB> One of the most popular IPR
terms is so called MAD. It is surprising
SB> that you do not call this
out.
conditions include 1) terms that
are fair, reasonable and non-
discriminatory, and which may
bear royalties or other financial
obligations (FRAND or RAND); 2)
royalty-free terms that are otherwise
fair, reasonable and
non-discriminatory (RAND-z); and 3) commitments
not to assert declared IPR.
SB> One of the most common (at
least in the Routing area) is non-assert
SB> unless the other party
asserts (so called MAD)
Personally, I don’t view MAD as a term quite in the
same style
and technical specificity as, say, RAND or RF. I would
suggest
not adopting this.
(Non-assert on the other hand is a more
technical term, but I also have not seen calls for
adding that
from others.)
The reason I raise this is because it is the most common licensing
term in the lower layers
being the standard term by at least three of the major vendors. I am
sure it has a technical
name, presumably mutual-non-assert.
- Stewart
|