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

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Mon, 17 February 2014 19:09 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@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 AA8791A03F0 for <ipr-wg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Feb 2014 11:09:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 PZqmbU_kQMXa for <ipr-wg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Feb 2014 11:09:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pa0-x22d.google.com (mail-pa0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::22d]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08EA41A052A for <ipr-wg@ietf.org>; Mon, 17 Feb 2014 11:08:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pa0-f45.google.com with SMTP id lf10so15656365pab.4 for <ipr-wg@ietf.org>; Mon, 17 Feb 2014 11:08:52 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=9Kd4BdnpNS+qd/xA7eoqxnel1ZIjzPSp8dYuk7WtXUs=; b=R1w8z7hRdvyGNsgW3ECVG8kLT1LV53zT71I05ZjOCjBo6c0YxCP82jhfQ5Ga/Wq9+c 3b283gB5vK+Xeo/EmSm3r9UEFCyOrMsGR/BK92k0BtG5dZzZEOpc/LcHE2CXf0s5WS+W N9dvjaBynY6SH1KPqIllxn6ZuvVYdaJkyc2TX6POaY3LxgxJxsIi2zM0XM4vDzmzRu5S lpTfdt6pmCcSdk//qqM7JuAiSnQZYV8AZMniwMqRILGIQAEq345xruRwUfk0M75iVYtv rAhy7xV8fQswNJWQnFzPEys9Oomlc1uZ0LGnU5NQC645i/cqB/9EgBr/EszeYZQPGgcg Q0uA==
X-Received: by 10.68.244.103 with SMTP id xf7mr28185627pbc.50.1392664132513; Mon, 17 Feb 2014 11:08:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.178.23] (82.200.69.111.dynamic.snap.net.nz. [111.69.200.82]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id yz5sm123648671pac.9.2014.02.17.11.08.50 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 17 Feb 2014 11:08:51 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <53025E44.4080301@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2014 08:08:52 +1300
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Scott Brim <scott.brim@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: RFC3979bis section 7 -- hierarchy of preference for licensing
References: <CE30292A.A0AE7%stewe@stewe.org> <201308191218.r7JCIXUN005969@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> <CAPv4CP-8fqhPz=3JTcuKn7LnNu8K=5cVs9+fMTLjuE=QF5WohQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAPv4CP-8fqhPz=3JTcuKn7LnNu8K=5cVs9+fMTLjuE=QF5WohQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipr-wg/P2_MhGedjOTWJSQdE39fEcbq-hI
Cc: "ipr-wg@ietf.org" <ipr-wg@ietf.org>
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, 17 Feb 2014 19:09:09 -0000

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