RE: clarification of blanket statement text

No I speak for myself here, just like everyone else, unless otherwise noted.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ipr-wg-bounces@ietf.org 
> [mailto:ipr-wg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of todd glassey
> Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2005 1:44 PM
> To: rbarr@cisco.com; 'Scott W Brim'; ipr-wg@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: clarification of blanket statement text
> 
> Robert - you speak for Cisco here dont you? So what is it 
> that Cisco feels
> in important about the control and release of the copyright in this
> standards process.
> 
> Also - the documents are really toothless and the IESG may 
> want to address
> that. I am referring to what happens to something what the 
> fish starts to
> smell foul as it were.
> 
> Todd
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Robert Barr" <rbarr@cisco.com>
> To: "'Scott W Brim'" <sbrim@cisco.com>; <ipr-wg@ietf.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2005 1:26 PM
> Subject: RE: clarification of blanket statement text
> 
> 
> > I think this would be a useful discussion -- it provides 
> more structure
> and
> > purpose to the proposed discussion of "acceptable" 
> defensive clauses. If a
> > defensive clause in  a free license is "acceptable" then a blanket
> statement
> > should be acceptable.
> > rbarr, zealot
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: ipr-wg-bounces@ietf.org
> > > [mailto:ipr-wg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Scott W Brim
> > > Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2005 12:59 PM
> > > To: ipr-wg@ietf.org
> > > Subject: clarification of blanket statement text
> > >
> > > I'd like to discuss this at the meeting.  If necessary I 
> can write up
> > > a small draft based on the results of discussion.  It's 
> within scope
> > > of the current charter.
> > >
> > > In RFC 3668 6.4.3, it says:
> > >
> > >    However, the requirement for an IPR disclosure is 
> satisfied by a
> > >    blanket statement of the IPR discloser's willingness 
> to license all
> > >    of its potential IPR meeting the requirements of 
> Section 6.6 (and
> > >    either Section 6.1.1 or 6.1.2) to implementers of an IETF
> > >    specification on a royalty-free basis as long as any 
> other terms
> > >    and conditions are disclosed in the IPR disclosure statement.
> > >
> > > RFC 3668 explicitly says "royalty-free".
> > > http://www.ietf.org/ietf/IPR/DYNAMICSOFT-SIMPLE.txt uses 
> that term,
> > > but consider
> > > 
> http://www.ietf.org/ietf/IPR/cisco-ipr-draft-salowey-tls-ticket.txt,
> > > http://www.ietf.org/ietf/IPR/hp-mib, and the classic RFC 1822 as
> > > examples that do not say "royalty-free" -- they say the 
> discloser will
> > > "not assert" its patent except under certain specified conditions.
> > >
> > > Could the "not assert" terms in those be used in a 
> blanket statement
> > > legitimately according to RFC 3668?
> > >
> > > Thanks ... Scott (Brim)
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Ipr-wg mailing list
> > > Ipr-wg@ietf.org
> > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg
> > >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Ipr-wg mailing list
> > Ipr-wg@ietf.org
> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ipr-wg mailing list
> Ipr-wg@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg
> 

_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg