Yes, it very nicely captures the spirit of the BoF's charter discussion to date.
Mike ----- Original Message ----- From: [email protected] <[email protected]> To: Russ Housley <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Fri Jan 08 21:43:49 2010 Subject: Re: [codec] WG Review: Internet Wideband Audio Codec (codec) I like that. On 2010-01-08 18:14, Russ Housley wrote: > Good improvement. I'd go a slide bit further: > > Although this preference cannot guarantee that the working > group will produce an unencumbered codec, the working group shall > follow BCP 79, and adhere to the spirit of BCP 79. The working > group cannot explicitly rule out the possibility of adapting > encumbered technologies; however, the working group will try to > avoid encumbered technologies that would hinder free > redistribution in any way. > > Russ > > On 1/7/2010 3:13 PM, Jean-Marc Valin wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I'm not sure royalties are the *least* of out problems, but I certainly >> agree with Stephan that annoyances go further than just royalties. I >> understand that BCP79 restricts what we can say about that in the >> charter, >> but at least mentioning the problem as Stephan suggests is a good idea >> IMO. >> In some sense, this is again part of the "making it easy to >> redistribute". >> >> Jean-Marc >> >> Stephan Wenger wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> Russ' language is an improvement. But let's not forget that there are >>> encumbrances that have nothing to do with paying royalties, but are >>> equally >>> problematic from an adoption viewpoint. Examples: >>> >>> 1. Co-marketing requirement: need to put a logo of the rightholder >>> company >>> on one's products acknowledging using the protected technology. >>> 2. Unreasonable (from the viewpoint of the adopter) reciprocity >>> requirements: one of many examples would be "if you use this >>> technology, you >>> agree not to assert, against me or my customers, any of your patents. >>> Otherwise your license terminates.". >>> 3. Requirement for a "postcard license". Such a requirement may rule out >>> open source implementations under certain open source licenses. >>> >>> I believe strongly that a charter that discusses IPR issues should >>> mention >>> at least those three aspects, and/or provide sufficiently vague >>> language to >>> allow for an appropriate reaction to those and other encumbrances >>> that may >>> show up. >>> >>> Royalties are the least of our problems. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Stephan >>> >>> Disclaimer: I have clients that would have problems with all three >>> encumbrances mentioned above. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 1/7/10 11:08 AM, "Peter Saint-Andre"<[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> On 1/7/10 9:46 AM, Russ Housley wrote: >>>>> Andy: >>>>> >>>>>>> Although this preference cannot guarantee that the working >>>>>>> group will produce an unencumbered codec, the working group shall >>>>>>> attempt to adhere to the spirit of BCP 79. This preference does not >>>>>>> explicitly rule out the possibility of adapting encumbered >>>>>>> technologies; >>>>>>> such decisions will be made in accordance with the rough >>>>>>> consensus of >>>>>>> the working group. >>>>>> I appreciate the potential difficulty of guaranteeing the >>>>>> unencumbered >>>>>> status of any output of this group. However, I would like this >>>>>> statement to >>>>>> be stronger, saying that this group will only produce a new codec if >>>>>> it is >>>>>> strongly believed by WG rough consensus to either be unencumbered, >>>>>> or freely licensed by the IPR holder(s), if any. >>>>> I do not think that anyone wants the outcome to be yet another >>>>> encumbered codec. I think these words are trying to say what you want, >>>>> but they are also trying to be realistic. >>>>> >>>>> Does the following text strike a better balance? >>>>> >>>>> Although this preference cannot guarantee that the working >>>>> group will produce an unencumbered codec, the working group shall >>>>> follow BCP 79, and adhere to the spirit of BCP 79. The working >>>>> group cannot explicitly rule out the possibility of adapting >>>>> encumbered technologies; however, the working group will try to >>>>> avoid encumbered technologies that require royalties. >>>> That seems reasonable. Although I was only the BoF co-chair, I'll >>>> volunteer to hold the pen on edits to the proposed charter. >>>> >>>> Peter >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> codec mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/codec >> >> > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > > _______________________________________________ codec mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/codec _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
