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

[Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>]

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.)

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.

S.

> 
> Peter
>