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

[Scott Brim <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 2:08 PM, Brian E Carpenter
<[e-mail]> 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