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

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

On 11/02/2014 04:22, Scott Brim wrote:
> 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".

Well, exactly where it fits in the list depends on the "certain
circumstances". And haven't we also seen "no license required, but
you can have one if you want"?

There are more subtleties, such as committing to one of the above
only if the draft is published as an RFC, or only if published
as a standards-track RFC.

I think establishing a rigid list in order of preference is a bit
tricky, so rather than twiddling the list, I suggest adding some
more weasel words to its preamble, which currently reads:

>    When evaluating the desirability of adopting such technologies, IETF
>    working groups generally prefer such terms in the following order
>    (from most to least desirable):

For example:

   When evaluating the desirability of adopting such technologies, IETF
   working groups generally prefer such terms in the following order
   (from most to least desirable, although this list is incomplete
   and other variants might occur in practice):

     Brian