Subject: Re: "No license" in template

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2003 06:59:06 -0500

--On Thursday, 27 November, 2003 09:02 +0200 Pekka Savola 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>    While the submission of the template commits the Patent
> Holder to     at least as good terms as it chooses, the
> submission does include     a license in itself; each licensor
> must negotiate a    license with the Patent Holder.
>...

> This doesn't fix my second problem, where I think RF should be
> treated as "no license required", but that's a bit of a can of
> worms  as discussed separately.

I think much of the problem, although not globally applying your 
preference, could be fixed by changing the last suggested 
sentence so that it read something like...

	... in itself; each licensor must negotiate a license
	with the Patent Holder except as provided below.

and then modifying the template so that making the distinction 
between "individual licenses required" and "this is a general 
license, no individual licenses are required" is clear and easy 
to make.

Again, I think the text had best come from the lawyers, rather 
than the amateurs trying to draft and maybe getting them to sign 
off, but this can't be rocket science.

     john

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