Re: Patented RFC Code

["todd glassey" <tglassey at earthlink.net>]

Jorge
You mean 3.3.C.1.1 - the clauses are misnumbered. 3.3.D is actually a 
continuation as a sub-heading under the last sentence of 3.3.C. Likewise 
3.3.E has the same relation to 3.3.D

Todd Glassey

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Contreras, Jorge" <Jorge.Contreras at wilmerhale.com>
To: "Stephane Bortzmeyer" <bortzmeyer at nic.fr>
Cc: "IPR WG" <ipr-wg at ietf.org>
Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2007 4:53 AM
Subject: RE: Patented RFC Code



> Patented where? Software patents do not exist on my side of the world.

Then you're safe!  (But don't count on it.)
>

> I did not specially mention the patent issue. Even if there is no
> patent, I cannot use at will software written by someone else unless
> there is a *specific* authorization to do so. This is this
> authorization that we miss.
3.3.a.E gives this authorization, but excluding patents.

_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wg at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg 


_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wg at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg