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

On 14/08/2013 08:02, Stephen Farrell wrote:
> 
> On 08/13/2013 06:23 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>> On 8/13/13 11:05 AM, Stephan Wenger wrote:
>>> Barry,
>>> Your formulation is certainly more accessible.  I'm fine with it.
>> Agreed.
>>
>> Formatting aside, is that hierarchy of options complete and accurate? It
>> looks fine to me and consistent with our "running code" in these
>> matters. I wonder: do we need to specify a bit more what we mean by
>> "open-source-friendly non-assert terms"?
> 
> Overall this is a good change IMO, thanks Stephan.
> I prefer Barry's formulation.
> 
> I think we should ask some folks who care a lot about OSS, IPR and
> licensing to see what they think at some point since it'd be a real
> shame to make this change but then discover that some important OSS
> group find it objectionable. (I do however agree with Stephan's
> approach of not going into too much detail in case we accidentally
> prefer one OSS camp over another.)
> 
> One other comment, I'd add a 2.5 to Barry's list:
> 
> - 2.5. same-as-2 but with mutually assured destruction (MAD).

There are good reasons why we never tried to define RAND in an RFC.
(Basically WANL and WADNJ, we are not lawyers and we are *definitely*
not judges.) The same reasons mean that we shouldn't try to define
any of these terms precisely in an RFC. "Open-source friendly"???
Of course that is way out of our competence to define.

So, while expressing some preferences (and mine might well agree
with the proposed list), we have to be extremely clear that we
are not laying down rules and that the only criterion in the end
is WG rough consensus to adopt or not adopt a particular technology.
In fact I wonder about putting this in a BCP rather than in RFC3669bis.

    Brian

> 
> Someone would have to figure out how to phrase that but there're
> plenty of examples (e.g. most or all Cisco declarations) where
> you lose the right to an RF license if you sue the IPR declarer
> over your claimed IPR.
> 
> S.
> 
>> Peter
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Ipr-wg mailing list
> Ipr-wg@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg
> 