Subject: RE: IPR for Standards Track only???

From: "Christian Huitema" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2003 11:20:58 -0700

> > Since you use the word "should", we appear to agree. It's "must"
> > prior to entry into the standards track that seems impractical
> > to me.
> 
> what's impractical about making a disclosure as soon as you know that
> a disclosure needs to be made?

The disclosure itself may or may not be an issue, but in any large
company, making a disclosure also requires that you make a licensing
proposal, i.e. in essence dispose of the company's property. That
requires involving the legal department, or the upper management, or
both. Your mileage may vary depending on the specific corporate culture,
but you cannot assume it will always be simple.

-- Christian Huitema

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

---

From: Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2003 14:40:21 -0400 (EDT)

agreed - but that will not get easier if you wait until some point
in the future

---

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 07 Jun 2003 09:40:19 +0200

> but you cannot assume it will always be simple.

hmmm... you seem to be saying that:

- disclosure of IPR is relatively simple
- figuring out what licensing terms to offer is hard
- company lawyers tend to want to do both at the same time
- this can significantly delay disclosures

in the interest of timely disclosure, should we try to encourage untying 
the two, and have lots of disclosures that say "licensing terms are not 
determined yet"?

                         Harald

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 08 Jun 2003 15:10:27 +0200

> the two, and have lots of disclosures that say "licensing terms are not

That would be terrible. It freezes discussion until resolved, and as
Christian said that can take quite a while (3 monthgs?).

   Brian

---

From: Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 8 Jun 2003 09:39:48 -0400 (EDT)

> Christian said that can take quite a while (3 monthgs?).

I do not agree that it "freezes" dicsussions in many or most cases
if a company is known for offering RAND terms then the WG can assume that 
is what will come about, in this and other cases the WG can (and would
I expect) see if there are alternatives

I agree that it could in some cases but I would not expect that
to be a significant issue

Scott

---

From: Scott W Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 8 Jun 2003 09:52:45 -0400

> Christian said that can take quite a while (3 monthgs?).

I don't think so.  Licensing terms disclosures are often so vague that
you get no substantial information out of them anyway, and we seem to do
all right making decisions based on history and other communication.
_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

---

From: Scott W Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 8 Jun 2003 09:53:36 -0400

> to be a significant issue

When not having clear licensing terms is a showstopper, the WG takes
that into account and probably takes another course.  We have
precedents.
_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2003 12:28:29 -0400

On Sun, 08 Jun 2003 15:10:27 +0200
Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]> wrote:

> > in the interest of timely disclosure, should we try to encourage
> > untying the two, and have lots of disclosures that say "licensing
> > terms are not determined yet"?
> 

maybe we need a timeout then?  you must disclose within NN days or
immediately if there is a Last Call on the document?
_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

---

From: Scott W Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2003 12:53:59 -0400

> immediately if there is a Last Call on the document?

Context: the original discussion was whether the implications of the
Note Well, applying rfc2026 policies to all types of contributions,
should be made explicit.  That has now morphed into whether disclosure
of IPR and disclosure of licensing terms should be united or "untied".

They are already untied.  Disclosure of IPR is a "must", while
disclosure of licensing terms is a "should", even though some general
statements about licensing are usually made at the time of IPR
disclosure.  Requiring licensing term disclosure at the same time as IPR
disclosure would be a significant change.
_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg