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

[Stephan Wenger <[e-mail]>]

Barry,
Your formulation is certainly more accessible.  I'm fine with it.
Stephan


On 8.13.2013 18:38 , "Barry Leiba" <[e-mail]> wrote:

>> This post is about the first sentence of RFC 3979, which reads:
>>
>> In general, IETF working groups prefer technologies with no known IPR
>>claims
>> or, for technologies with claims against them, an offer of royalty-free
>> licensing.
>>
>> I propose to replace this sentence with:
>>
>> In general, to solve a given problem, the IETF prefers technologies
>>with no
>> known IPR over technologies with IPR claim(s) against them.  With
>>respect to
>> technologies with IPR claim(s) against them, the IETF prefers
>> open-source-friendly non-assert terms over reasonable and
>>non-discriminatory
>> royalty-free terms (RAND-Z), over technologies offered under reasonable
>>and
>> non-discriminatory terms but possibly incurring royalties (RAND), over
>> technologies with IPR against them where the terms are non-RAND or, in
>>the
>> worst case, where the IPR is declared as being not licensable.
>
>Oh, my.  Only a lawyer could love that.  I find it entirely
>incomprehensible.  Over, over, over.  Over.
>
>Are you really trying to set up a hierarchy, wherein option A is
>preferred over B, and B is preferred over C, and so on?  Then why not
>set it up that way, as a list?  How's this?:
>
>-------------
>In general, to solve a given problem, the IETF prefers technologies
>with no known IPR over technologies with IPR claim(s) against them.
>With respect to technologies with IPR claim(s) against them, the IETF
>considers the following list of terms to be in decreasing order of
>preference:
>
>1. open-source-friendly non-assert terms
>2. reasonable and non-discriminatory royalty-free terms (RAND-Z)
>3. technologies offered under reasonable and non-discriminatory terms
>but possibly incurring royalties (RAND)
>4. technologies with IPR against them where the terms are non-RAND
>5. the worst case, where the IPR is declared as being not licensable
>-------------
>
>Barry