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

["Calvin Chu" <[e-mail]>]

See below, and here.

Currently I've made it a priority to review the Cisco style disclosure
with Columbia.  In the meantime, it's my priority to work out to the
satisfaction of the members here to allow this draft to remain.  I am
working on this.

Calvin Chu
Senior Licensing Officer
Columbia Technology Ventures
http://techventures.columbia.edu
Tel: [phone]
Twitter: cchu


-----Original Message-----
From: Roland Bless [mailto:[e-mail]] 

Hi,

>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.

Regardless of track, if it's open source, then it's FREE. 

>> 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.

I'm looking into the suggestion on the Cisco style IPR disclosure --
still need about a day or so to get some consensus.  

I was earlier under the impression that this RFC was unlikely to exit
Experimental status so no details were worked out for what that fee may
be.  It would be unacceptable to us for this fee to prohibit legitimate
use, except, at the time I entered the disclosure (as well as now), the
threshold for what would be prohibitive isn't known to me.  The members
of the list would likely know better than me on these matters.  

If it's case (A) above, we can declare a hard upper limit the
uncertainty is removed from the system.  If (A) is unacceptable at any
value, in any case, I'm simultaneously passing around the Cisco style
disclosure.