 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The issue is not so much restrictive as different. Corporate lawyers work from precedent, if they have already agreed to a set of terms they do not need further review. If you change an iota its a whole performance.
Most companies have already agreed to the w3c terms, negotiation is unnecessary.
-----Original Message-----
From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:brc at zurich.ibm.com]
Sent: Tue Dec 20 05:26:19 2005
To: Hallam-Baker, Phillip
Cc: ietf at ietf.org
Subject: Re: Enough RE: Publication of draft-lyon-senderid-core-01 in conflict with referenced draft-schlitt-spf-classic-02)
...
> I think it would be a good idea for the IETF to either pick an IPR
> standard or to require WGs to specify what their IPR standard will be
> when they begin a WG. I would be quite happy for the IETF to adopt the
> same IPR policy as W3C and require all standards to meet that standard
> of being open and unencumbered.
>
> What is not a good idea is to attempt to achieve consensus on this issue
> after the WG charter has been agreed.
An even worse idea is to start a WG with a restricted IPR regime such
that relevant patent owners decline to contribute and thereby escape
the obligation to disclose their patents, IMHO. This is the very real
danger that the IETF method avoids.
Brian
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf at ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.