Subject: Re: royalty-free blanket statements and reasonable terms

From: Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 10:33:15 -0400 (EDT)

> I'm not sure where the WG stands on this issue. I've posted what I
> think may be a potential issue (see below), but few have responded on
> what (if anything should be done). Either folk think this isn't an
> issue to worry about (in which case I guess the current text is OK),
> or we need to decide what needs to be done.

could the problem be delt with by 
	1/ dropping the "reasonable and non-discriminatory term"
and
	2/ saying that a blanket RF statement is ok only if no 
	  individual interactions will be needed with implementors or users?

Scott

_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

---

From: Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 10:45:11 -0400 (EDT)

reworded like this for example
   However, the requirement for an IPR disclosure is satisfied by a blanket
   statement of the IPR discloser's willingness to license all of its
   potential IPR meeting the requirements of Section 6.6 (and either Section
   6.1.1 or 6.1.2) to implementers of an IETF specification on a royalty-free
   basis as long as such a license would not require interactions with
   individual implementers or users of the IPR.

Scott