Subject: IPR language in IASA BCP

From: Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 07:10:09 -0800

In reviewing the IASA BCP I noticed a minor issue:

S 2.2 and 3.1 refer to "perpetual right to use, display, etc."
The standard language here typically includes both "royalty-free"
(or "fully-paid up") and "irrevocable". I would particularly think
we want to specify that no future royalties are due.

-Ekr

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

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 16:34:16 +0100

> we want to specify that no future royalties are due.

I think "fully paid up" (unsure where to place the dashes) should be 
uncontroversial to add, especially as, thanks to ISOC's edits, we have an 
escape clause if we really, really have to.

I am somewhat afraid of insisting on "irrevocable", since many forms of 
license (including the GPL) are revocable for cause.

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 20:25:02 +0100

On rescanning (and rescanning) the text, I find that "irrevocable" is 
already in there (!), but I have some problems with where to fit "fully 
paid up", since it is really only relevant to licensing, while most of the 
text talks about "rights".

There is one paragraph that does talk about licensing, in paragraph 7 of 
section 3.1, and we can add it there:

        It is preferred that Developed Software be
        provided and licensed for IASA and IETF use in source
        code form, with no ongoing payments.

No binding promises, but our preference is clear.
Makes sense?

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 20:11:03 +0100

On re-reading this, I can't figure out how to make it scan properly - the 
reason being that both paragraphs you point at talk about "right" to use, 
while "fully-paid-up", "royalty-free" and "irrevocable" typically applies 
to one particular type of rights assignment - licensing.

Leslie has already pointed out the need to start in on an IPR management 
guidebook for the IASA, and the transition team has started that work - so 
I think we should move that issue there.

Makes sense?

                     Harald

---

From: Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 11:33:18 -0800

Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]> writes:

> already in there (!), but I have some problems with where to fit
> "fully paid up", since it is really only relevant to licensing, while
> most of the text talks about "rights".
>
> There is one paragraph that does talk about licensing, in paragraph 7
> of section 3.1, and we can add it there:
>
That makese sense.

-Ekr