RE: Copying and licensing....Re: Copying conditions

>I think that this does need to belong in the ID when possible although
>if there are legal reasons this would be problematic I'd be delighted
>to listen to them.

Sam,

There's no "legal" reason, only the practical and
organizational ones that others have been
mentioning.

Regards
Jorge

-----Original Message-----
From: Sam Hartman [mailto:hartmans-ietf@mit.edu]
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2005 12:58 PM
To: Contreras, Jorge
Cc: Harald Tveit Alvestrand; Scott Bradner; ipr-wg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Copying and licensing....Re: Copying conditions

>>>>> "Contreras," == Contreras, Jorge <Jorge.Contreras@wilmerhale.com> writes:

    Contreras,> Harald,

    Contreras,> I suggest that such a statement be put in an IP
    Contreras,> disclosure statement, just as though a patent owner
    Contreras,> were telling the community that it intends to license
    Contreras,> its patents on an RF basis.  Putting such statements
    Contreras,> in the I-D could become very confusing.

It will make it difficult for people to evaluate the licensing terms
if they are scattered all over the place.  Mor over, it is desirable
to be able to look at a single document and conclude that you do in
fact have the necessary rights to use it as you plan.  That's simply
not possible for patents.  However for copyright it seems reasonable.
Here are some differences that I found useful when coming to this conclusion:

* Copyright, unlike patent claims, is unlikely to be asserted by a
  third party.  If copyright is asserted by a third party, we may well
  find we are not in a position to distribute the RFC at all.

* We want to avoid evaluating the validity of patent or trademark
  claims.  For the most part we can presumptively assume that the authors of a draft do have copyright on that draft without creating a problem.

--Sam

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