So, here are statements that you could make as part of this discussion that would be entirely in scope:
1) I've read the IPR. Prior to this disclosure I was interested in developing|deploying|shipping an implementation of this specification. Now I am not. 2) I think you could go so far as to say. Based on this IPR I would no longer feel comfortable making an open-source implementation of this spec available. 3) Or on the other side: I've reviewed this new IPR and I believe I could implement|ship|deploy|whatever this specification. Or if you don't like giving out as much information as 1-3: 4) I've reviewed the new IPr and I recommend that we not advance this standard 5) I've reviewed the IPR and I do recommend we advance. Obviously, people may weigh statements of the form 1-3 with more value than 4-5. However it's really hard to get many organizations to say something in the 1-3 range. Other valid things to say in such a context include: 6) We've successfully obtained any licenses we believe that we need in order to implement this specification given the IPR. 7) We attempted to obtain the licenses we needed in order to implement given this IPR but were unsuccessful. believe all the above statements are acceptable. In particular, none of them comment on the validity of the IPR nor give legal advice about stuff. I believe you could even go so far as to say something like I believe that an open-source implementation of this technology is|is not important to whether we should standardize it. I believe we've come very close to that in the past. _______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list OAuth@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
