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

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