Re: clarification of blanket statement text

[Scott W Brim <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Feb 15, 2005 02:03:55PM -0800, Lawrence Rosen allegedly wrote:
> > Could the "not assert" terms in those be used in a blanket
> > statement legitimately according to RFC 3668?
> 
> Simple phrases like ?$B!Hnot assert?$B!I and ?$B!Hroyalty-free?$B!I
> cannot possibly suffice to describe acceptable patent licensing
> terms for open standards.

That's not relevant to the question I asked, Larry.  Are those terms
included in the intention of the cited rfc3668 paragraph, where it
talks about blanket statements for licenses which are "royalty-free"
(with other explicit terms)?  In previous discussion I believe we
concluded that "no license required" was generally considered easier
for a WG to deal with than "royalty-free", but this paragraph only
mentions the latter.

_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg