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

[Stephan Wenger <[e-mail]>]

Steve,
Please see inline.
Stephan


On 8.13.2013 13:02 , "Stephen Farrell" <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
>
>On 08/13/2013 06:23 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>> On 8/13/13 11:05 AM, Stephan Wenger wrote:
>>> Barry,
>>> Your formulation is certainly more accessible.  I'm fine with it.
>> 
>> Agreed.
>> 
>> Formatting aside, is that hierarchy of options complete and accurate? It
>> looks fine to me and consistent with our "running code" in these
>> matters. I wonder: do we need to specify a bit more what we mean by
>> "open-source-friendly non-assert terms"?
>
>Overall this is a good change IMO, thanks Stephan.
>I prefer Barry's formulation.
>
>I think we should ask some folks who care a lot about OSS, IPR and
>licensing to see what they think at some point since it'd be a real
>shame to make this change but then discover that some important OSS
>group find it objectionable. (I do however agree with Stephan's
>approach of not going into too much detail in case we accidentally
>prefer one OSS camp over another.)

Feel free :-)

(Let me note that I ran my idea, before posting, against two colleagues
who have some experience in the field, but prefer not to be named.
Neither of them had a concern.)

>
>One other comment, I'd add a 2.5 to Barry's list:
>
>- 2.5. same-as-2 but with mutually assured destruction (MAD).
>
>Someone would have to figure out how to phrase that but there're
>plenty of examples (e.g. most or all Cisco declarations) where
>you lose the right to an RF license if you sue the IPR declarer
>over your claimed IPR.

MAD sounds scary.  But a patent lawsuit hardly falls under the category of
"destruction".  Even small companies get occasionally sued over patents,
without going down.  Big ones get sued every other week or so.  It's not
the end of the world.  Moderately scary sometimes, and surely annoying,
but not necessarily (not even frequently, in my personal experience)
destructive.

2.5 would be called something like "open-source friendly non-assert terms
with reciprocity condition."

I have yet to see a non-assert covenant anywhere (inside or outside the
IETF) that does not include a reciprocity clause (termination of promise
not to sue in case of litigation or, in some cases, assertion of a patent
against the rightholder, or his friends, or his customers, or another user
of the standard, ...).  AFAIR, all IETF disclosures with non-assert terms
would fall under 2.5 according to your definition.  And, while we are at
it, I have yet to see a license agreement under RAND or RAND-Z that does
not include reciprocity conditions.  Therefore, let me suggest it would be
an unnecessary add of word count and confusion if we were adding 2.5 (and
corresponding 3.5, 4.5, etc.).



>
>S.
>
>> 
>> Peter
>>