Re: Cisco EIGRP patent licence and the GPLv2 licence

2017-07-05 Thread Florian Weimer
* Paul Jakma: > It's less clear to me though whether there is an issue on the copyright > and GPLv2+ licence side. The concern that has been raised with me is > that the Cisco grant is conditional and revocable with potential > royalties applying, while the GPLv2+ seems to require

Re: Cisco EIGRP patent licence and the GPLv2 licence

2017-07-05 Thread Walter Landry
Paul Jakma wrote: > On Tue, 4 Jul 2017, Walter Landry wrote: >> With that said, the usual approach that Debian follows is that if the >> patent is not being actively enforced, Debian does not worry about >> them. Otherwise, Debian would not be able to ship anything. Since >> you

Re: Cisco EIGRP patent licence and the GPLv2 licence

2017-07-05 Thread Paul Jakma
On Tue, 4 Jul 2017, Walter Landry wrote: "For any claims of any Cisco patents that are necessary for practicing the Enhanced Interior Gateway Routing Protocol specification , any party will have the right to use any such patent claims under reasonable, non-discriminatory terms, with

Re: Cisco EIGRP patent licence and the GPLv2 licence

2017-07-04 Thread Walter Landry
Paul Jakma wrote: > Hi, > > I have a question I have not been able to get a conclusion to, > regarding the compatibility of the licence Cisco have given to their > EIGRP patents, by way of their declaration under the IETF "IPR" > process. That declaration being: > >