Subject: Re: IPR Language - Re: [Fecframe] Re: Comments of FECFrame Charter

From: Vincent Roca <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2006 09:10:38 +0100

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
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fecframe