Re: IPR at IETF 54

To: IETF <ietf at ietf.org>
Subject: Re: IPR at IETF 54
From: Scott Brim <sbrim at cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 11:15:58 -0400
In-reply-to: <D6A2BC3A-73DD-11D6-98D0-00039357A82A@extremenetworks.com>; from rja@extremenetworks.com on Thu, May 30, 2002 at 10:59:27AM -0400
Mail-followup-to: Scott Brim <sbrim at cisco.com>, IETF <ietf at ietf.org>
References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020530094144.00a68590@localhost> <D6A2BC3A-73DD-11D6-98D0-00039357A82A@extremenetworks.com>
Sender: owner-ietf at ietf.org
User-agent: Mutt/1.2.5i

On Thu, May 30, 2002 10:59:27AM -0400, RJ Atkinson wrote:
> 	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 if one solution is 120% better technically than another, but has a
RAND license associated with it?  What if it's 170% better?

Follow-Ups:
- Re: IPR at IETF 54
  - From: Dave Crocker
- Re: IPR at IETF 54
  - From: Marshall Rose

References:
- Re: IPR at IETF 54
  - From: Melinda Shore
- Re: IPR at IETF 54
  - From: RJ Atkinson

Prev by Date: Re: IPR at IETF 54
Next by Date: Re: IPR at IETF 54
Previous by thread: Re: IPR at IETF 54
Next by thread: Re: IPR at IETF 54
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.

Re: IPR at IETF 54

Note: Messages sent to this list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.