Re: [codec] Proposed Guidelines update , was: Re:Opus codec licensing

[Erik Norvell <[e-mail]>]

Hi Anisse,

I am indeed no expert either but I have had these issues explained to me. The problem we see is that a royalty free license may still include other special conditions stipulated by the IPR owner. Such conditions may for instance be a non-assert, which could drag the license into patent lawsuits concerning other patents. The cost of entering such agreements may be larger than paying a royalty.

We are not arguing against such licenses in general, but within this WG there is an explicit preference to avoid them. 

Quouting the Codec charter:
(http://tools.ietf.org/wg/codec/charters)

" A codec that can be widely implemented and easily distributed among
  application developers, service operators, and end users is preferred.
  Many existing codecs that might fulfill some or most of the technical
  attributes listed above are encumbered in various ways.  For example,
  patent holders might require that those wishing to implement the codec
  in software, deploy the codec in a service, or distribute the codec in
  software or hardware need to request a license, enter into a business
  agreement, pay licensing fees or royalties, or attempt to adhere to
  other special conditions or restrictions."


Our suggestion is that the guidelines document, describing the process to follow this charter, should also state this preference for unencumbered technologies. 

In our view, the licensing option that defines truly unencumbered technology is the "No License Required" option: 
(http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ipr-template-07, section VI. Licensing Declaration)

"a) ___   No License Required for Implementers
              Check here if commitment to forgo a license is limited
              solely to standards-track RFCs ___"

Best regards,
Erik



-----Original Message-----
From: Anisse Taleb [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: den 5 november 2010 17:30
To: Erik Norvell; [e-mail]
Subject: RE: [codec] Proposed Guidelines update , was: Re:Opus codec licensing

Dear Erik,

I am not a lawyer but would like to understand what is the difference between obtaining a royalty free license and no license at all, if the former is truly a royalty free license. How do you define an unencumbered codec and truly unencumbered codec? 

If it is on the effort of taking contact with the licensor and obtaining a license (which could be as automated as signing up for a new facebook account) I would still consider that unencumbered. A license could also be provided as part of the code distribution.

Could you please clarify ?

Kind regards,
/Anisse 


> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf 
> Of Erik Norvell
> Sent: Friday, November 05, 2010 11:11 AM
> To: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [codec] Proposed Guidelines update , was: Re:Opus codec 
> licensing
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> This suggested guidelines update was sent the day after version 08 was 
> announced. However, the sections on which we commented were not 
> changed from version 07 to 08, so the comments still apply. To 
> re-iterate our
> proposal:
> 
> 1) The guidelines should state a preference for truly unencumbered 
> technology if choice is given.
> 2) Truly unencumbered should be defined as the 'No license required'
> option.
> 
> I see this as an alignment with the charter of this WG, which already 
> emphasizes the preference for unencumbered technologies. To make this 
> draft a WG item this point should be considered.
> 
> Best,
> Erik
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf 
> Of Jonas Svedberg
> Sent: den 26 oktober 2010 13:40
> To: [e-mail]
> Cc: Jean-Marc Valin
> Subject: [codec] Proposed Guidelines update , was: Re:Opus codec 
> licensing
> 
>  Hi all
> 
>   from my point of view it is beneficial if we can boil down the 
> current discussion on licensing and IPR disclosures
>   to what should be included in our WGs process document (guidelines).
> 
> 
>    With regard to the  current proposed guidelines text v07, it is in 
> section  5 refering to BCP79:
>    "In general, IETF working groups prefer technologies with no known 
> IPR claims or, for technologies with
>    claims against them, an offer of royalty-free licensing."
> 
>     This BCP79 reference to does not state a preference between the 
> two basic forms of Royalty Free
>        A) 'RF' where 'No license is required'  (no royalities, no 
> entering into any agreement )
>        B) 'RF'-licensing, where obtaining a license and entering into 
> an agreement is still required.
> 
>      In form B) the licensing terms may include limitations and/or 
> compensations which are identified as encumbrances by
>      the charter of this WG.  Reading the charter, it defines 
> encumbrance as :
>        "... need to request a license, enter into a business 
> agreement, pay licensing fees or royalties,
>         or attempt to adhere to other special conditions or 
> restrictions".
> 
>      The charter further expresses as one of the goals:
>        "The working group cannot explicitly rule out the possibility 
> of adopting encumbered technologies;
>         however, the working group will try to avoid encumbered 
> technologies that require royalties or
>         other encumbrances that would prevent such technologies from 
> being easy to redistribute and use."
> 
>       Hence, in the spirit of the charter and the creation of the WG,
>       we  should make it clear in the guidelines that royalty-free 
> licensing by no means is identical with unencumbrance
>       and that proposed technology adhereing to the 'No lic. required 
> option' should be prefered if the WG is presented
>       with such a choice.
> 
>      Also in light of the discussion, it seems reasonable to state in 
> the guidelines that any inclusion of technology
>      into the codec will not be considered unless proper IP disclosure 
> for the contribution has been made.
> 
> 
>     Attached is an proposed updated guidelines (section 5, page ~10), 
> with change marks.
> 
> 
> //BR Jonas