Re: [NSIS] IPR Disclosure: The Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York's Statement about IPR related to draft-ietf-nsis-tunnel-13

[Al Morton <[e-mail]>]

I'd particularly like to know if the terms mean this:

If the draft is published in Experimental status,
then the IPR is free (forever).

Al

At 03:27 PM 12/8/2010, Jukka Manner wrote:
>Hi Calvin, I'm not an expert in how people should or should not 
>disclose and phrase ipr statements. I hope other people on this list 
>who are more experienced could provide guidance on how to resolve 
>this issue in a positive way.
>
>Regards,
>Jukka
>
>On 8.12.2010 20:17, Calvin Chu wrote:
>>All,
>>
>>I've just subscribed to the list so I'm trying to catch up to the
>>current conversation.
>>
>>I'm open to modifying the terms, please send me suggestions.  As to
>>whether Columbia would just modify the terms arbitrarily later, I could
>>get it into writing if that helps.
>>
>>I've been informed there are some questions regarding the specific FRAND
>>terms in non-open source commercial situations. My thoughts were to set
>>a simple flat fee for that sole situation.   If this is reasonable, I
>>can defer to members of this list to suggest what may be fair.  If this
>>does not sound reasonable, I'll do my best to make things right by this
>>list members, after all, Columbia neglected to declare on time.
>>
>>Best regards,
>>
>>Calvin Chu
>>Senior Licensing Officer
>>Columbia Technology Ventures
>>http://techventures.columbia.edu
>>Tel: [phone]
>>Twitter: cchu
>>
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of
>>Roland Bless
>>Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2010 4:24 AM
>>To: Fu, Xiaoming
>>Cc: Jukka Manner; [e-mail]
>>Subject: Re: [NSIS] IPR Disclosure: The Trustees of Columbia University
>>in the City of New York's Statement about IPR related to
>>draft-ietf-nsis-tunnel-13
>>
>>Hi,
>>
>>[sorry, previous message was cut, I accidentally hit the send button
>>instead of the edit menu :-)]
>>
>>On 08.12.2010 08:55, Fu, Xiaoming wrote:
>>>I would vote for c).
>>
>>It's not clear to me what prevents the Columbia University
>>from changing terms back later if they are changing the terms
>>now on our request?
>>
>>>a) Do members of the WG accept those terms,
>>>b) Do you want to redesign the protocol to work around the IPR,
>>>c) Do you want to ask Columbia to modify the terms, or
>>>d) Do we drop the document from the WG (authors can still pursue
>>publications through the independent track)?
>>
>>Jukka said:
>>>Please indicate your preference within two weeks, by Friday 17th at:
>>>
>>>http://www.doodle.com/mb2gvfit64bnya99
>>
>>Regards,
>>   Roland
>>_______________________________________________
>>nsis mailing list
>>[e-mail]
>>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nsis
>
>--
>Jukka MJ Manner, Professor, PhD.  Phone:  +358+(0)9+470 22481
>Aalto University                  Mobile: +358+(0)50+5112973
>Department of Communications      Fax:    +358+(0)9+470 22474
>and Networking (Comnet)           Office: G320a (Otakaari 5A)
>P.O. Box 13000, FIN-00076 Aalto   E-mail: [e-mail]
>Finland                           www.netlab.hut.fi/~jmanner/
>_______________________________________________
>nsis mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nsis