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

[Stephan Wenger <[e-mail]>]

Let me suggest to substitute "Making it easy to redistribute" with "Making
it easy to redistribute and use".

Shareware and Trialware are often freely redistributable, but not
necessarily free to use in a monetary sense.  The mechanisms that make
Trial/Shareware not freely usable are often partly of technical nature, and
not only based legal language, but that doesn't make things different in our
context.

Stephan



On 1/7/10 12:13 PM, "Jean-Marc Valin" <[e-mail]> 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" <[e-mail]> 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
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/codec
>