Bill Strahm wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 30 May 2002, RJ Atkinson wrote:
> 
> >
> > On Thursday, May 30, 2002, at 09:48 , Melinda Shore wrote:
> > > Here's one for starters: there's no guidance on how or whether to
> > > treat differences in licensing terms for competing proposals.  It
> > > would be nice to be able to say that all other things being more-or-
> > > less equal we should prefer technology which will be available
> > > royalty-free,
> >
> >       Agree.
> >
> >       My druthers would be to have an IETF policy explicitly saying that
> > the first
> > choice is to use unencumbered technology if it can be made to work,
> > second choice
> > is encumbered but royalty-free technology, and last choice is "fair and
> > reasonable
> > licence terms" (or whatever the equivalent correct legal wording might be
> > for that last).
> >
> >       And it would be good to have a conventional template for the
> > royalty-free
> > licence -- one that the IETF's legal counsel has reviewed and believes
> > is acceptable
> > for IETF purposes.
> I disagree with this, I don't think the IETF can afford to keep a staff of
> lawyers working on determining the licencing statements of all of the
> standards being churned out.
> 
> That said, I don't think it would do any good anyway, lets say the IETF
> lawyer gives his Okey Dokie, then my company implements the standard and a
> problem with the licencing terms comes up... Who do I go sue, the IETF ???
> 
> I hope not, but that could be creating a legal liability for the IETF if
> its lawyers make statements on the licencing terms of protocols...
> 
> Bill


Bill,

The IETF isn't incorporated, so there is no way it can make such statements.
The IETF's corporate umbrella is the Internet Society. Now I haven't
consulted ISOC's CEO and VPs but I am on pretty safe ground in asserting
that you are correct: ISOC would never accept such a liability. Our
insurance company wouldn't let us.

Brian E Carpenter 
Board Chairman, Internet Society http://www.isoc.org
INET 2002, Washington, DC, 18-21 June http://www.inet2002.org


Reply via email to