Re: [codec] Last Call: <draft-ietf-codec-opus-12.txt> (Definition of the Opus Audio Codec) to Proposed Standard

[SM <[e-mail]>]

At 15:53 30-04-2012, Stephan Wenger wrote:
>This subject was also raised by our AD on the codec mailing list.  The
>statement is about spec text copyright (with the possible exception of the
>word "use", which is loaded in this context, see BSD license and implicit
>patent grant ambiguity).  Insofar, the patent licensing statement received
>appear to be irrelevant to this discussion.

Ok.

At 18:40 30-04-2012, Ron wrote:
>If this clause becomes a blocker, then we should simply remove it, but in that
>case it would be good to have clear reasons why it became a blocker, since the
>things you say you fear here, I see as already being prohibited anyway.

The text in Section 10 is ambiguous.

Given all the efforts that went into RFC 6569, it's odd to see the 
text being discussed during the Last Call instead of the WGLC.

Regards,
-sm