On Wed, 29 May 2002, Melinda Shore wrote: > At 11:03 AM 5/29/02 +0200, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > >I think it's pretty clear. That doesn't mean it doesn't > >cause confusion, because it certainly does. There is a strong > >case for an informational document and presentation to try to > >get rid of the confusion, but that doesn't need a meeting or a WG. > > I really think that it depends on your definition of "pretty > clear." Aside from situations in which some competing technologies > are encumbered and some are not, we're now finding ourselves in > situations where all of the proposed technologies are encumbered > but have different licensing terms. I think that a new informational > document would benefit a great deal from real-time discussion, etc., > if for no other reason to see which questions are raised. A Friday > meeting seems to me to be a rather small one-time cost for getting > more clarity around the issue. > > Melinda
Yes, a lot of discussion will come about "IPR". For example, the case of VRRP is not really solved ;-). Cisco says that a RAND (reasonable and non-discriminatory) is available. But for example, for the Free Software developers (for example : released under the GNU General Public License) need a RF (Royalty-free license). http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#RAND We have contacted Cisco Inc. several time about that without getting any feedback regarding the RF license. http://www.ael.be/node.php?id=52 I think a method for Free Software developers should be created inside the IETF (because implementations of draft/RFC are often Free Software). Also a correct terminology should be in place. (RF / RAND / type of Licensing...) What do you think about that ? Thanks adulau
