Re: Last Call Summary on <draft-bradner-rfc3979bis-10.txt> (Intellectual Property Rights in IETF Technology) to Best Current Practice

[Stewart Bryant <[e-mail]>]

Jari

I agree with the proposed resolutions , but would like to reply on three 
points:


On 22/02/2017 21:40, Jari Arkko wrote:
>
>
>
> * Question from Stewart Bryant on Jan 24, regarding item B in
>   Section 3.3:
>
>>       B. Such Contributor represents that there are no limits to the
>>          Contributor's ability to make the grants, acknowledgments and
>>          agreements herein that are reasonably and personally known
>>     to the
>>          Contributor.
>>
>>     SB> I do not understand what point B above means.
>
>     It means that if you (for instance) make an IPR declaration
>     and say something about the license conditions, you or whoever
>     is helping you to make that statement, can actually make those
>     statements.
>
>     I don’t think a document change is needed.
>

I am suspect that I am not alone in finding the original legal language
impenetrable, whilst finding your explanatory text crystal clear. I would
request you take a another look at this point, perhaps adding your text
by way of clarification.

> * Question from Stewart Bryant on Jan 24, regarding Section
>   5.7:
>
>>     5.7. Disclosures for Oral Contributions.
>>
>>       .... then the Contributor must accompany
>>       such oral Contribution with an oral declaration that he/she is
>>     aware
>>       of relevant IPR in as much detail as reasonably possible
>>
>>     SB> I do not recall ever seeing a purely verbal disclosure, and
>>     wonder
>>     SB> what the process is, how this is archived and how it is
>>     discovered?
>
>     Sometimes it happens that a presenter makes a statement,
>     e.g. that the audience should note that some IPRs may apply
>     and that a written declaration is forthcoming.
>

I suppose the requirement would that the WG take particular care to 
minute the IPR
disclosure so it is on record. At least if it is the minutes it is 
searchable and from
the minutes you can get to the recoding to get the exact words.

>
> * Suggestion from Stewart Bryant on Jan 24, regarding Section
>   5.5:
>
>>     5.5. Licensing Information in an IPR Disclosure
>>
>>       A. Since IPR disclosures will be used by IETF working groups during
>>          their evaluation of alternative technical solutions, it is
>>     helpful
>>          if an IPR disclosure includes information about licensing of the
>>          IPR in case Implementing Technologies require a license.
>>          Specifically, it is helpful to indicate whether, upon
>>     approval by
>>          the IESG for publication as an RFC of the relevant IETF
>>          specification(s), all persons will be able to obtain the
>>     right to
>>          implement, use, distribute and exercise other rights with
>>     respect
>>          to an Implementing Technology a) under a royalty-free and
>>          otherwise reasonable and non- discriminatory license, or b)
>>     under
>>          a license that contains reasonable and non-discriminatory terms
>>          and conditions, including a reasonable royalty or other payment,
>>          or c) without the need to obtain a license from the IPR holder
>>          (e.g., a covenant not to sue).
>>
>>     SB> One of the most popular IPR terms is so called MAD. It is
>>     surprising
>>     SB> that you do not call this out.
>>     …
>>       Some common
>>       conditions include 1) terms that are fair, reasonable and non-
>>       discriminatory, and which may bear royalties or other financial
>>       obligations (FRAND or RAND); 2) royalty-free terms that are
>>     otherwise
>>       fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (RAND-z); and 3)
>>     commitments
>>       not to assert declared IPR.
>>
>>     SB> One of the most common (at least in the Routing area) is
>>     non-assert
>>     SB> unless the other party asserts (so called MAD)
>
>     Personally, I don’t view MAD as a term quite in the same style
>     and technical specificity as, say, RAND or RF. I would suggest
>     not adopting this.
>
>     (Non-assert on the other hand is a more
>     technical term, but I also have not seen calls for adding that
>     from others.)
>
>

The reason I raise this is because it is the most common licensing term 
in the lower layers
being the standard term by at least three of the major vendors. I am 
sure it has a technical
name, presumably mutual-non-assert.

- Stewart