From fecframe-bounces@ietf.org Wed Feb 01 03:12:45 2006 Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F4D6b-0000iK-LX; Wed, 01 Feb 2006 03:12:45 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F4D6Z-0000hT-Ct for fecframe@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 01 Feb 2006 03:12:43 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA20721 for ; Wed, 1 Feb 2006 03:11:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from mx-serv.inrialpes.fr ([194.199.18.100]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1F4DHg-00033A-HS for fecframe@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Feb 2006 03:24:13 -0500 Received: from dwimmerlaik.inrialpes.fr (dwimmerlaik.inrialpes.fr [194.199.18.72]) by mx-serv.inrialpes.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id k118C2v7012705; Wed, 1 Feb 2006 09:12:02 +0100 (MET) Received: from [194.199.24.102] (demeter.inrialpes.fr [194.199.24.102]) by dwimmerlaik.inrialpes.fr (8.13.4/8.11.3/ImagV2) with ESMTP id k118C1a8009565; Wed, 1 Feb 2006 09:12:02 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <43E06CFE.7050301@inrialpes.fr> Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2006 09:10:38 +0100 From: Vincent Roca User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7-1.1.fc3 (X11/20050929) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: mankin@psg.com Subject: Re: IPR Language - Re: [Fecframe] Re: Comments of FECFrame Charter References: <200601021958.OAA09166@ietf.org> In-Reply-To: <200601021958.OAA09166@ietf.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-2.0 (mx-serv.inrialpes.fr [194.199.18.100]); Wed, 01 Feb 2006 09:12:03 +0100 (MET) X-SMAUG-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-SMAUG-MailScanner-From: vincent.roca@inrialpes.fr X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 52e1467c2184c31006318542db5614d5 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: fecframe@ietf.org X-BeenThere: fecframe@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of FEC Framework List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: fecframe-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: fecframe-bounces@ietf.org Dear Allison et al., >People should now review the completely fresh IPR language >that Digital Fountain came up with, announced by Mark. It is >comparable to IPR language that the TCPM WG found manageable >(based on a WG consensus call) in a past TSV story. > > Our lawyer has examined the IP disclosure, new version, posted by Digital Fountain: https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/ipr_detail_show.cgi?&ipr_id=674 He came to the following conclusions: - The text offers a royaltee-free licence, which is fine (and IMHO is the minimum in case of a framework). - The text expresses a reciprocity principle, which is at first glance fine. But it is explained that this reciprocity principle is not limited to the use/patenting of published IETF specification. That is, the Royalty-Free license falls with respect to any third parties asserting any of its patent rights against Digital Fountain, whatever the field is (alleged infringement in published IETF specification or in any other technical features). This sentence narrows significantly the situation under which a party can benefit from the royaltee-free licence... We would be more comfortable with a reciprocity statement that stays within the published IETF specification limits (patents essential to published IETF specification and uses of such specification). Apart from that, I'm still concerned by having generic frameworks being uncumbered by IPRs in general. I'm wondering what would have happened if the TCP/IP protocol suite, back in the origin, had been subject to IPRs... Cheers, Vincent. _______________________________________________ Fecframe mailing list Fecframe@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe