RE: clarification of blanket statement text

I think this would be a useful discussion -- it provides more structure and
purpose to the proposed discussion of "acceptable" defensive clauses. If a
defensive clause in  a free license is "acceptable" then a blanket statement
should be acceptable.
rbarr, zealot 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ipr-wg-bounces@ietf.org 
> [mailto:ipr-wg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Scott W Brim
> Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2005 12:59 PM
> To: ipr-wg@ietf.org
> Subject: clarification of blanket statement text
> 
> I'd like to discuss this at the meeting.  If necessary I can write up
> a small draft based on the results of discussion.  It's within scope
> of the current charter.
> 
> In RFC 3668 6.4.3, it says:
> 
>    However, the requirement for an IPR disclosure is satisfied by a
>    blanket statement of the IPR discloser's willingness to license all
>    of its potential IPR meeting the requirements of Section 6.6 (and
>    either Section 6.1.1 or 6.1.2) to implementers of an IETF
>    specification on a royalty-free basis as long as any other terms
>    and conditions are disclosed in the IPR disclosure statement.
> 
> RFC 3668 explicitly says "royalty-free".
> http://www.ietf.org/ietf/IPR/DYNAMICSOFT-SIMPLE.txt uses that term,
> but consider
> http://www.ietf.org/ietf/IPR/cisco-ipr-draft-salowey-tls-ticket.txt,
> http://www.ietf.org/ietf/IPR/hp-mib, and the classic RFC 1822 as
> examples that do not say "royalty-free" -- they say the discloser will
> "not assert" its patent except under certain specified conditions.
> 
> Could the "not assert" terms in those be used in a blanket statement
> legitimately according to RFC 3668?  
> 
> Thanks ... Scott (Brim)
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ipr-wg mailing list
> Ipr-wg@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg
> 

_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg