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

[Barry Leiba <[e-mail]>]

> This post is about the first sentence of RFC 3979, which reads:
>
> In general, IETF working groups prefer technologies with no known IPR claims
> or, for technologies with claims against them, an offer of royalty-free
> licensing.
>
> I propose to replace this sentence with:
>
> In general, to solve a given problem, the IETF prefers technologies with no
> known IPR over technologies with IPR claim(s) against them.  With respect to
> technologies with IPR claim(s) against them, the IETF prefers
> open-source-friendly non-assert terms over reasonable and non-discriminatory
> royalty-free terms (RAND-Z), over technologies offered under reasonable and
> non-discriminatory terms but possibly incurring royalties (RAND), over
> technologies with IPR against them where the terms are non-RAND or, in the
> worst case, where the IPR is declared as being not licensable.

Oh, my.  Only a lawyer could love that.  I find it entirely
incomprehensible.  Over, over, over.  Over.

Are you really trying to set up a hierarchy, wherein option A is
preferred over B, and B is preferred over C, and so on?  Then why not
set it up that way, as a list?  How's this?:

-------------
In general, to solve a given problem, the IETF prefers technologies
with no known IPR over technologies with IPR claim(s) against them.
With respect to technologies with IPR claim(s) against them, the IETF
considers the following list of terms to be in decreasing order of
preference:

1. open-source-friendly non-assert terms
2. reasonable and non-discriminatory royalty-free terms (RAND-Z)
3. technologies offered under reasonable and non-discriminatory terms
but possibly incurring royalties (RAND)
4. technologies with IPR against them where the terms are non-RAND
5. the worst case, where the IPR is declared as being not licensable
-------------

Barry