Re: Putting IPR on the IETF consensus proccess (was: beware of fake pills)

[Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com>]

Legally, they're very different. What I meant was that a free software
developer can probably work reasonably comfortably with either of them.

Of coure IANAL.

    Brian

On 2007-05-26 05:50, Bernard Aboba wrote:
> With all due respect,  broad defensive non-assert clauses are quite 
> different from RF licenses.  For an analysis of the differences, see the 
> article below: 
>
> http://www.law.uchicago.edu/files/lichtman/def-susp.pdf
>
> Brian Carpenter said:
>
> It's a defensive non-assert disclosure, which IMHO is equivalent to RF
> for anyone who plays nicely. Actually a defensive non-assert may
> indirectly *protect* a normal implementor, when you think about its
> impact on a third party implementor who does try to assert a patent.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf at ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf