On Tue, 6 Nov 2007, David Stevens wrote:
give it away on this specific instance. I'm not sure if you should
attribute to hidden agendas what you can explain by "doing the right
thing" (granted, very few companies do this which may make it suspect,
but still..).
Pekka,
I'm not assuming hidden agendas here; I simply don't know what
they mean by "no license for implementers." It doesn't say they
relinquish *all* licensing, which would be clearer if that's what they
mean. If implementers, distributors, and users are included, then
who's left that does need licensing? If that answer really is nobody,
then why bother with "for implementers."?
So, I don't think it's a hidden agenda, I think they said what
they mean. I just don't know what they mean. :-)
If you look at the page they used to file the disclosure:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/new-specific/
You'll notice that they chose the most relaxed option available, and
all the options only discuss implementers not distributors.
Now, if you look at the background commentary of the subject:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3905
.. the comment about that particular option is:
a) No License Required for Implementers: The Patent Holder does not
require parties to acquire any license to its Necessary Patent
Claims in order to make, have made, use, import, offer to sell,
sell, or distribute technology that implements such an IETF
specification.
Seems clear to me, though someone could argue whether RFC 3905 is
normative in this context, i.e., whether the person who submitted the
disclosure understood the comment quoted above and that that's the way
"no license required for implementers" must be interpreted.
--
Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
