Re: RFC3979bis section 7 -- hierarchy of preference for licensing

Scott Brim <scott.brim@gmail.com> Mon, 17 February 2014 19:13 UTC

Return-Path: <scott.brim@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ipr-wg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipr-wg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 451B41A051C for <ipr-wg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Feb 2014 11:13:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OWF7oKOym0Lu for <ipr-wg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Feb 2014 11:13:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ob0-x229.google.com (mail-ob0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c01::229]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B8BF1A03DB for <ipr-wg@ietf.org>; Mon, 17 Feb 2014 11:13:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ob0-f169.google.com with SMTP id wo20so17402812obc.14 for <ipr-wg@ietf.org>; Mon, 17 Feb 2014 11:13:45 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=h51rY7K2HHVYstfvHkDyKjQcB3vEWBeE5Ry/ttFi/yo=; b=uFxxTfEvU2PUccGuObi6ctqO6LBCofwdGsKYrNwqDzcit8wikp0fNIvlBX1QvqPEp8 TQI/j4XElCWMhumq4gv4uO1mBrDMeeLCN+2SvKZdEhDItoSC/BX66njXvGSsaDs9SHPZ /Ao5nI/GQn59TYCq5BwEnY0zSazI7920/1LcDtPJagSHoP/PzYpNHfQAObSDj7DfA4S2 /9EWZbHFnPMPwYeH0jrxMxxjRSYj7O7yUmlpVIui2Hjjw/qQIYe/OaBd1FKlPdfgw5zb b/vHNt+5AIthU4Rc7mM3b5TwB9QwGkOdeIEI89pKgL7UAWMOO9O87wG3jQoSkUS56dm+ 9Ktg==
X-Received: by 10.182.129.201 with SMTP id ny9mr22574253obb.0.1392664425693; Mon, 17 Feb 2014 11:13:45 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.182.48.9 with HTTP; Mon, 17 Feb 2014 11:13:25 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <53025E44.4080301@gmail.com>
References: <CE30292A.A0AE7%stewe@stewe.org> <201308191218.r7JCIXUN005969@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> <CAPv4CP-8fqhPz=3JTcuKn7LnNu8K=5cVs9+fMTLjuE=QF5WohQ@mail.gmail.com> <53025E44.4080301@gmail.com>
From: Scott Brim <scott.brim@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2014 14:13:25 -0500
Message-ID: <CAPv4CP8aZk6Un+QacXEm_=WokCsOshfEoVyLcvSy=R9+EOtYPQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: RFC3979bis section 7 -- hierarchy of preference for licensing
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipr-wg/0ZFIJJNISRltwKjo6KZDKFSWguc
Cc: "ipr-wg@ietf.org" <ipr-wg@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ipr-wg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IPR-WG <ipr-wg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipr-wg>, <mailto:ipr-wg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipr-wg/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipr-wg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipr-wg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg>, <mailto:ipr-wg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2014 19:13:50 -0000

On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 2:08 PM, Brian E Carpenter
<brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>; wrote:
> On 11/02/2014 04:22, Scott Brim wrote:
>> Greetings. Inspired by Jorge's mail to the IETF list, I took a look at
>> the preferred terms again.
>>
>>> a) commitment not to assert declared IPR;
>>> b) commitment to license declared IPR on royalty-free terms that are
>>>     otherwise fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (RAND-z);
>>> c) commitment to license declared IPR on terms that are fair,
>>>     reasonable and non-discriminatory, and which may bear royalties or
>>>     other financial obligations (FRAND or RAND);
>>> d) commitment to license, with no constraints on terms;
>>> e) no commitment to license.
>>
>> It seems like there's a big leap between a and b. What about the
>> common position of "no license required (although you can get one)
>> except under certain circumstances"?  That is more than "commitment
>> not to assert declared IPR", but less than "commitment to license
>> royalty-free".
>
> Well, exactly where it fits in the list depends on the "certain
> circumstances". And haven't we also seen "no license required, but
> you can have one if you want"?

Yes - "although you can get one". I'm not trying to change any other
text, or argue about order at all, but this plus "except under certain
circumstances" is common in the IETF and it seems strange not to
mention it when others are mentioned that are much less common.

Scott