Subject: Re: royalty-free blanket statements and reasonable terms

From: Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 12:02:59 -0400 (EDT)

the W3C definition of RF seems reasnable - it might be worth putting a 
version of it as an appendix (assuming the W3C is OK with that)

Scott

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

---

From: Daniel Weitzner <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 16:22:03 -0400

> version of it as an appendix (assuming the W3C is OK with that)

You're free to use the language, with approporiate attribution of 
course. :-) I'd suggest using the dated URI for the document [1] as the 
policy may evolve over time.

Danny

[1] 
http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20030520.html#sec-Requirements

-- 
Daniel J. Weitzner                              +1.617.253.8036 (MIT)
World Wide Web Consortium                       +1.202.364.4750 (DC)
Technology & Society Domain Leader              <[email-masked]>
http://www.w3.org/People/Weitzner.html