RE: clarification of blanket statement text

Scott Brim wrote:
> That's not relevant to the question I asked, Larry.  

I know that I didn't answer the question you asked. My point was that you
(and some others here) keep asking irrelevant questions! Quit tinkering with
the present policy and fix what's needed.

> 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.

I don't know how you can conclude, based upon the discussions that have
raged on this list for more than a year, that "we concluded" anything of the
sort.

Neither "no license required" nor "royalty-free" is acceptable by itself.
The previous discussion did not resolve anything at all. The attempt by some
here to foreclose meaningful discussion about basic IPR policy is obviously
not working.

Does it surprise you that so many patent grants filed with IETF are
impossible to understand and to evaluate? That all companies, including your
own, aren't quite sure what they're getting when they adopt IETF standards?
Nuanced patent declarations filed with IETF that identify no specific
patents and promise nothing of importance with relation to them are
meaningless. The fact that the IETF IPR policy allows such crap is an
invitation to disaster. 

Does using the word "crap" make me a zealot?

/Larry

Lawrence Rosen
Rosenlaw & Einschlag, technology law offices (www.rosenlaw.com)
3001 King Ranch Road, Ukiah, CA 95482
707-485-1242  ●  fax: 707-485-1243
Author of “Open Source Licensing: Software Freedom 
               and Intellectual Property Law” (Prentice Hall 2004)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scott W Brim [mailto:sbrim@cisco.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2005 2:20 PM
> To: Lawrence Rosen
> Cc: ipr-wg@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: clarification of blanket statement text
> 
> 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
Ipr-wg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg