RE: clarification of blanket statement text

No 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ipr-wg-bounces@ietf.org 
> [mailto:ipr-wg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Lawrence Rosen
> Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2005 3:05 PM
> To: 'Scott W Brim'
> Cc: ipr-wg@ietf.org
> Subject: 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
> 

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