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

Scott Brim <scott.brim@gmail.com> Mon, 10 February 2014 15:22 UTC

Return-Path: <scott.brim@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ipr-wg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipr-wg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CF5D1A031A for <ipr-wg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Feb 2014 07:22:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.101
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.101 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xqoG_g-VSiKW for <ipr-wg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Feb 2014 07:22:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ob0-x234.google.com (mail-ob0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c01::234]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A38D41A030F for <ipr-wg@ietf.org>; Mon, 10 Feb 2014 07:22:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ob0-f180.google.com with SMTP id wp4so7183757obc.25 for <ipr-wg@ietf.org>; Mon, 10 Feb 2014 07:22:28 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type; bh=iTHZMq8lsef/TjkIZgY0JgtdNKoCgen0x5H91ktboPk=; b=dMiqNd5TPBFfj0qzDG4x5xhhtolYg+Ib3ne7ypuVFV/8lo3GAIiWRSwxvH77+FOpBS TR1U/5eB3te72NW8oUFAFJaDci0/6wbRcwElkBH5MPCvApmAaGDsGjbR+2u49Wlt9O4p 7ttR1LsgcTWQU5BTJSyV4Hjvx8IASPH10aUPdmdox5I6cVEBZzexl3/G1O5g0a5/Cz0I 5HddnAoXO45cdl+7laj6WFzxnM2/bb33ZEZrkDq8OxDyOBFw7NE7zCzyC9VOVhjK3QrY qhqE/cssml0JXA2HU3fzxD92icg67BbO0yCFEgaj9Nc7TgmvJyfrOgn/kQxGXPKt2QMn ij1Q==
X-Received: by 10.60.174.77 with SMTP id bq13mr14530127oec.0.1392045748337; Mon, 10 Feb 2014 07:22:28 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.182.48.9 with HTTP; Mon, 10 Feb 2014 07:22:08 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <201308191218.r7JCIXUN005969@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com>
References: <CE30292A.A0AE7%stewe@stewe.org> <201308191218.r7JCIXUN005969@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com>
From: Scott Brim <scott.brim@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 10:22:08 -0500
Message-ID: <CAPv4CP-8fqhPz=3JTcuKn7LnNu8K=5cVs9+fMTLjuE=QF5WohQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: RFC3979bis section 7 -- hierarchy of preference for licensing
To: "ipr-wg@ietf.org" <ipr-wg@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-BeenThere: ipr-wg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IPR-WG <ipr-wg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipr-wg>, <mailto:ipr-wg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipr-wg/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipr-wg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipr-wg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg>, <mailto:ipr-wg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 15:22:30 -0000

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".

Scott