Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Codec (codec)

I would have guessed "adopting" (nice catch. I missed it completely). but 
other than this, I wanted to say that Russ's new formula seemed more in 
synch with what I've been seeing on this list - much stronger than "will 
try" (would be nice).

Thanks,

Spencer

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Adrian Farrel" <Adrian.Farrel@huawei.com>
To: "Russ Housley" <housley@vigilsec.com>
Cc: <codec@ietf.org>; <ietf@ietf.org>; <iesg@ietf.org>
Sent: Friday, January 08, 2010 6:20 PM
Subject: Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Codec (codec)

> "adapting" or "adopting"?
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Russ Housley" <housley@vigilsec.com>
> Cc: <codec@ietf.org>; <ietf@ietf.org>; <iesg@ietf.org>
> Sent: Friday, January 08, 2010 11:14 PM
> Subject: Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Codec (codec)
>
>
>> Good improvement.  I'd go a slide bit further:
>>
>>    Although this preference cannot guarantee that the working
>>    group will produce an unencumbered codec, the working group shall
>>    follow BCP 79, and adhere to the spirit of BCP 79.  The working
>>    group cannot explicitly rule out the possibility of adapting
>>    encumbered technologies; however, the working group will try to
>>    avoid encumbered technologies that would hinder free
>>    redistribution in any way.
>>
>> Russ
>>
>> On 1/7/2010 3:13 PM, Jean-Marc Valin wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I'm not sure royalties are the *least* of out problems, but I certainly
>>> agree with Stephan that annoyances go further than just royalties. I
>>> understand that BCP79 restricts what we can say about that in the 
>>> charter,
>>> but at least mentioning the problem as Stephan suggests is a good idea 
>>> IMO.
>>> In some sense, this is again part of the "making it easy to 
>>> redistribute".
>>>
>>> Jean-Marc
>>>
>>> Stephan Wenger wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> Russ' language is an improvement.  But let's not forget that there are
>>>> encumbrances that have nothing to do with paying royalties, but are 
>>>> equally
>>>> problematic from an adoption viewpoint.  Examples:
>>>>
>>>> 1. Co-marketing requirement: need to put a logo of the rightholder 
>>>> company
>>>> on one's products acknowledging using the protected technology.
>>>> 2. Unreasonable (from the viewpoint of the adopter) reciprocity
>>>> requirements: one of many examples would be "if you use this 
>>>> technology, you
>>>> agree not to assert, against me or my customers, any of your patents.
>>>> Otherwise your license terminates.".
>>>> 3. Requirement for a "postcard license".  Such a requirement may rule 
>>>> out
>>>> open source implementations under certain open source licenses.
>>>>
>>>> I believe strongly that a charter that discusses IPR issues should 
>>>> mention
>>>> at least those three aspects, and/or provide sufficiently vague 
>>>> language to
>>>> allow for an appropriate reaction to those and other encumbrances that 
>>>> may
>>>> show up.
>>>>
>>>> Royalties are the least of our problems.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Stephan
>>>>
>>>> Disclaimer: I have clients that would have problems with all three
>>>> encumbrances mentioned above.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 1/7/10 11:08 AM, "Peter Saint-Andre"<stpeter@stpeter.im>  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 1/7/10 9:46 AM, Russ Housley wrote:
>>>>>> Andy:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Although this preference cannot guarantee that the working
>>>>>>>> group will produce an unencumbered codec, the working group shall
>>>>>>>> attempt to adhere to the spirit of BCP 79.  This preference does 
>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>> explicitly rule out the possibility of adapting encumbered 
>>>>>>>> technologies;
>>>>>>>> such decisions will be made in accordance with the rough consensus 
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> the working group.
>>>>>>> I appreciate the potential difficulty of guaranteeing the 
>>>>>>> unencumbered
>>>>>>> status of any output of this group. However, I would like this
>>>>>>> statement to
>>>>>>> be stronger, saying that this group will only produce a new codec if
>>>>>>> it is
>>>>>>> strongly believed by WG rough consensus to either be unencumbered,
>>>>>>> or freely licensed by the IPR holder(s), if any.
>>>>>> I do not think that anyone wants the outcome to be yet another
>>>>>> encumbered codec.  I think these words are trying to say what you 
>>>>>> want,
>>>>>> but they are also trying to be realistic.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Does the following text strike a better balance?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    Although this preference cannot guarantee that the working
>>>>>>    group will produce an unencumbered codec, the working group shall
>>>>>>    follow BCP 79, and adhere to the spirit of BCP 79.  The working
>>>>>>    group cannot explicitly rule out the possibility of adapting
>>>>>>    encumbered technologies; however, the working group will try to
>>>>>>    avoid encumbered technologies that require royalties.
>>>>> That seems reasonable. Although I was only the BoF co-chair, I'll
>>>>> volunteer to hold the pen on edits to the proposed charter.
>>>>>
>>>>> Peter
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> codec mailing list
>>>> codec@ietf.org
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/codec
>>>
>>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf 