Subject: to follow up on David's note

From: Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 15:05:26 -0500 (EST)

the IETF leaves it up to the WG to think - and most IETF WGs think that
IPR-free is the rigt way to go - and some WGs have spent a lot of time
trying to go that way (see the IPS WG for example) but if a WG feels
that the advantages of an IPR-constrained technology overrides
the advantage of IPRfree they can select it

we *do not* say that any RAND technology is automatically OK

I (personally) see no reason to not suggest that IPR-free should
be given more weight but I do not see that it is always best
to do nothing if only IPR-constrained technology is availiable or go
for the poorer solution if the IPR-constrained technology is much better

as far as I can tell the suggestion is that IETF  WGs 
should not be permitted think about the issue - i.e. substute 
some absolutist  principal for the people involved in the 
technology dvelopment - 

and nothing in the absolutest position deals with the fact that many
of the IPR claims that the IETF gets are not from IETF participants
and a number come after the RFC was published - 

I'd rather let the WG think

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

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 15:49:49 -0500

> for the poorer solution if the IPR-constrained technology is much better

total cost needs to be taken into consideration rather than just IPR
licensing cost.  if we're writing a standard for software that
might be distributed for free, IPR licensing cost can be significant,
and RF terms are highly desirable.  OTOH, if we're writing a standard for
IP-over-expensive-layer-two-medium where an implementation is inherently going
to require expensive hardware anyway, it should be sufficient if IPR 
licensing cost doesn't contribute significantly to the overall cost of using
the technology - and RAND terms are probably sufficient.

just one example of why these decisions are best left to individual WG
participants.

Keith

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 15:49:49 -0500

Keith