Subject: "no license required for implementers"

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2007 16:47:45 +0200 (EET)

In https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/new-specific/ the most relaxed 
option seems to be "a) No License Required for Implementers".

The interpretation of this text is offered in 
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3905:

    a) No License Required for Implementers: The Patent Holder does not
       require parties to acquire any license to its Necessary Patent
       Claims in order to make, have made, use, import, offer to sell,
       sell, or distribute technology that implements such an IETF
       specification.

Given that the IPR disclosure form quoted above does not reference RFC 
3905 and that that interpretation is not presented to the person 
filing the disclosure, whose interpretation wins?

Note that the list above does not mention redistribution by someone 
other than the implementer (not sure if the difference is relevant 
here).

Could the person filling IPR disclosure argue that that a license is 
required for distributing (or redistributing) the implementation when 
"no license required for implementers" was checked?

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2007 22:37:05 -0800 (PST)
From: David Miller <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked],
     [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/05] ipv6: RFC4214 Support

From: David Stevens <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2007 22:07:44 -0800

>> I guess license is no longer required for implementers of ISATAP.
>> Is it right, Fred?
>>
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/550/
>
> Does this also allow license-free redistribution?
>
> I'm certainly no lawyer, but I don't see the point of
> having a patent that doesn't restrict *something*. :-)

That is my interpretation as well.  It allows
license free implementation, but not distribution
of said implementation.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to [email-masked]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

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

---

From: Scott Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2007 07:32:46 -0800

Excerpts from Pekka Savola on Wed, Nov 07, 2007 04:47:45PM +0200:
> In https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/new-specific/ the most relaxed option 
> seems to be "a) No License Required for Implementers".
>
> Given that the IPR disclosure form quoted above does not reference
> RFC 3905 and that that interpretation is not presented to the person

IMHO 3905 was not authoritative, but was a discussion document to get
agreement on what to tell the (then) Secretariat to put in the on-line
template.  

> required for distributing (or redistributing) the implementation
> when "no license required for implementers" was checked?

Certainly not "distribute", since that is explicitly listed.  I don't
have the knowledge to express an opinion on "redistribute".  

You can see why many disclosers add an extra statement to the
template.

Scott