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

[Roland Bless <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

Am 10.12.2010 06:26, schrieb Calvin Chu:
> Is the Cisco style IPR disclosure the preferred format? The patent
> reciprocity isn't a good fit for us (as a non-profit) but this spells
> out a possible royalty as an option. 

I agree.

> Based on various comments, I'm going to guess that no one here is
> objecting to free experimental use, and free open-source use.  

Since we have an open implementation that's fine, but IMHO the following
cited text is not 100% clear that this is also guaranteed if the
specification will once change to standards track. So if you could make
it clear that the last point doesn't apply to the open-software and
development activities, it would be better.

>> Any open-source software and development activities: FREE with no royalties. No explicit license with us needed unless developer wishes to have one.
>> 
>> As long as this RFC remains Experimental Track, ANY use of this technology (open source or otherwise) will be free with no royalties for any purpose.
>> 
>> If track changes from EXPERIMENTAL to a standards track (not expected in this RFC): Terms would be FRAND with simple and reasonable annual fee, no per unit royalties.

> So one point of contention is Columbia's failure to submit this on time.
> For this, I can offer my sincere apologies.  I was notified of this
> unfortunately late in the game and it's outside of my ability to fix
> this point.

Sure, it's not your fault. The authors failed miserably to follow the
well-known and long established IETF disclosure rules, although they
even confirmed their knowledge in the usual Internet-Draft boilerplate
for every draft version.

> The other point of contention is the FRAND terms in the situation it
> becomes a protocol standard, and even then, only in the non-open source
> case.  
> 
> Is the issue: A) The fact that the fee is unknown B) The fact that there
> is a fee at all or C) desire to see better conformance of disclosure
> such as use of the Cisco style IPR disclosure

I would say B) and A) in that order :-), i.e.
if you remove any fee, it would cause no problem, but if you keep
the fee, it would be good to say something about it.

Regards,
 Roland