Re: IETF 87 IPRbis BOF evaluation

Scott/Chair/All -

The real issue here is that IETF technology licenses are broader than 
the use recommendations are and that is the core-failing of the current 
model. Further there is no teeth in the IPR process because it cannot be 
used to pull technology or mitigate that 
publication-and-open-license-to-use after the publication.

If anything is to be done about IPR then the licensing agreements need 
to be changed to address the following 3 (three) key issues:

1)    Type of Use License must be specified so that if a USE RULES 
specification document is produced by any team and approved with the 
technology, that it will moderate the licensing rules.  That is to say - 
a license must be supported that says IPR is more important that 
Creating Genesis here. IPR and the legal issues of who owns the IP are 
key to all aspects of this technology. As such the licensing must be 
included in the IP.

2)    Any IPR controlled rights to IP produced inside any org like the 
IETF needs a formal withdrawal process and a mechanism to revoke use 
rights.

3)    Licensing for use of IPR must (MUST) be able to control future use 
- meaning that the IETF one-way-publication-to-global-use-licensing 
models must be controllable under global IP law after AIA and the First 
to File changes in US Patent Law.

Its no longer negotiable...

Todd
> that possibility came up during the BOF
>
> Scott
>
> Scott Bradner
>
> Harvard University Information Technology
> Innovation & Architecture
> +1 617 495 3864
> 1350 Mass Ave., Room 760
> Cambridge, MA 02138
> www.harvard.edu/huit
>
> On Aug 2, 2013, at 5:24 AM, Scott Brim <scott.brim@gmail.com>
>   wrote:
>
>> On 08/02/13 10:48, Russ Housley allegedly wrote:
>>> I attended the IPRbis BOF.  The idea is to update the BCPs to
>>> incorporate experience from the last 8 years.  Jorge Contreras and Scott
>>> Bradner had a list of proposed changes, and they were each discussed in
>>> turn.  The discussion was much more calm than the discussion in Orlando,
>>> but this calmness did not allow review of all of proposed changes.  As a
>>> result, the BOF ended without a real conclusion.  By impression is that
>>> the I-D will be updated based on the ones that were discussed, and that
>>> discussion is needed on the remaining proposed changes.
>>>
>>> I'd recommend a thread on each proposed change on the ipr-wg@ietf.org
>>> <mailto:ipr-wg@ietf.org> so that there is a hope of getting this stuff
>>> done before the end of 2013.
>> What do you think about a "use cases and experience" replacement for
>> 3669?  If yes, I invite others to do it, since I won't get to it.
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ipr-wg mailing list
>> Ipr-wg@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg
> _______________________________________________
> Ipr-wg mailing list
> Ipr-wg@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg
>

-- 
// Standard "perasonal email" disclaimers apply