On Thu, 30 May 2002, RJ Atkinson wrote: > > On Thursday, May 30, 2002, at 09:48 , Melinda Shore wrote: > > Here's one for starters: there's no guidance on how or whether to > > treat differences in licensing terms for competing proposals. It > > would be nice to be able to say that all other things being more-or- > > less equal we should prefer technology which will be available > > royalty-free, > > Agree. > > My druthers would be to have an IETF policy explicitly saying that > the first > choice is to use unencumbered technology if it can be made to work, > second choice > is encumbered but royalty-free technology, and last choice is "fair and > reasonable > licence terms" (or whatever the equivalent correct legal wording might be > for that last). > > And it would be good to have a conventional template for the > royalty-free > licence -- one that the IETF's legal counsel has reviewed and believes > is acceptable > for IETF purposes. I disagree with this, I don't think the IETF can afford to keep a staff of lawyers working on determining the licencing statements of all of the standards being churned out.
That said, I don't think it would do any good anyway, lets say the IETF lawyer gives his Okey Dokie, then my company implements the standard and a problem with the licencing terms comes up... Who do I go sue, the IETF ??? I hope not, but that could be creating a legal liability for the IETF if its lawyers make statements on the licencing terms of protocols... Bill
