Re: [dhcwg] IPR statement related to draft-ietf-dhc-subscriber-id-X.txt

this is an ietf-wide issue, and this is the wrong forum for it. the ietf 
has had a consistent expectation, and that's what companies have met. it 
doesn't make sense to me to try to establish a different expectation in 
this one working group. if you want to change the way that the ietf handles 
IP (Intellectual Property, I mean, not the other thing) and IP licensing, 
more power to you and godspeed. take your issue to the proper forum - take 
it to the IPR WG, for example, or to the IAB. it doesn't make sense to me 
to complain that the ietf expectation is wrong, and that the ietf wg that's 
working on the issue is also wrong, and so the only way to get the policy 
to be what you want is to make some other wg do something different from 
the ietf as a whole.

the tone of this thread has gotten a little hysterical, it seems to me. 
it's not really the thing to suggest that cisco people are trying to 
compete with you unfairly because they have a bigger legal department than 
nominum does. the cisco people who contribute to this wg are, as you know 
well, committed to doing the right thing.

Let's take the thread back to the specific issue: I objected to the 
initial, vague packetfront IPR statement because I didn't like the 
implication that someone could stop progress in the standards body without 
substantial claims. the vague statement has been amended and brought in 
line with ietf expectations. I'm not aware of any DHC work that has related 
IPR statements that don't meet the ietf's expectations. it may even have 
been a good thing that we've had this blow-up, because it will certainly 
make us more aware of the issues going forward. now that the issue has been 
resolved, I'd like to continue the progress of this draft.

-- Mark

At 03:08 PM 2/6/2004 -0600, Ted Lemon wrote:
>On Feb 6, 2004, at 2:36 PM, John Schnizlein wrote:
>>Let us not forget that this stipulation of royalty-free is unusual.
>>Most IPR statements claim only the typical RAND statement.
>>What is the reason for suddenly requiring the unusual IPR statement in DHC?
>
>Because the "RAND statement" is insufficient.   If I am distributing 
>open-source software, I can't afford to pay you a royalty on the offchance 
>that someone might use your patented technique, even if the royalty is 
>"reasonable" by some standard.   I don't think it's even generally to your 
>advantage to use the RAND terms, because it means that your devices can't 
>be supported by open-source software.   I suppose it might sell a few 
>extra copies of Network Registrar.

_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
dhcwg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg