Re: clarification of blanket statement text

Robert - you speak for Cisco here dont you? So what is it that Cisco feels
in important about the control and release of the copyright in this
standards process.

Also - the documents are really toothless and the IESG may want to address
that. I am referring to what happens to something what the fish starts to
smell foul as it were.

Todd

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Robert Barr" <rbarr@cisco.com>
To: "'Scott W Brim'" <sbrim@cisco.com>; <ipr-wg@ietf.org>
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2005 1:26 PM
Subject: 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

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