On Jan 26, 2012, at 9:26 41PM, Ted Hardie wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 5:50 PM, Barry Leiba <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I am not a lawyer, but I don't think the license terms are at issue
>> here. As I understand it, the terms that Huawei has been specifying
>> in its disclosures are defensive, and shouldn't restrict standards
>> implementations. The issue we're discussing isn't the terms, but that
>> the disclosures weren't made when they should have been.
>>
>
> While I appreciate the recitation of unfortunate events that led us
> here, I don't quite share the view that the license terms are not at
> issue here. The reason that we have an IPR rule that asks us to
> declare what the terms of a license are is so that the working groups'
> members can evaluate both the applicability of the potentially
> encumbering patents and the terms of the license.
Yes, precisely. This is spelled out quite explicitly in Sections 5.2 and 5.3
of RFC 3669, and Section 6.5 of 3979.
--Steve Bellovin, https://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
