Subject: -technology & implementor

From: Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 23:31:13 -0400 (EDT)

thomas again sez
> In the definitions section, it might be good to define the term
> "implementor" more formally, as the term is used in ipr-template and
> I'm not sure *exactly* what it means. I.e., isn't the disributor of
> software (who may not be the implementor) also subject to some issues
> with regards to technology that has IPR associated with it?

see response for -submissions
I do not think there is a need to define implementor in these
documents because I do not think it makes any difference to
the requirement for someone to disclose

as far as defining the term in the template - the most I would suggest
to to have a place for the person filling out the teplate to
say who the free license covers - I see no reason that we should
restrict or define what the IPR discloser wants to say about 
who can implement their technology for what type of license

Scott

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