Subject: Now this is an ipr license I like..

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2008 08:12:14 +0300 (EEST)

https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/942/

===8<===
Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, Google hereby 
grants to You a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, 
royalty-free, irrevocable (except as stated in this License) patent 
license for patents necessarily infringed by implementation (in whole 
or in part) of this specification. If You institute patent litigation 
against any entity (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a 
lawsuit) alleging that the implementation of the specification 
constitutes direct or contributory patent infringement, then any 
patent licenses for the specification granted to You under this 
License shall terminate as of the date such litigation is filed.
===8<===

Does any community have a problem with these kind of IPR licensing 
terms?

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

---

From: Don Armstrong <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2008 03:05:00 -0700

[I don't really think this is on topic for the WG, so reply to me off
list if you require clarification; I won't respond on-list any
further.]

> Does any community have a problem with these kind of IPR licensing

This one of the less offensive forms of patent reciprocity out there;
there are some which are far more problematic as they cover things
which are not patents nor do they restrict themselves explicitely to
actions covering the patents in question.

Search for "patent reciprocity" if you want to know other published
opinions about it and other licenses which enact clauses like this.

Don Armstrong

-- 
Love is... a complex sequence of neurochemical reactions that makes
people behave like idiots. It's similar to intoxication, but the
hangover's even worse.
 -- J. Jacques _Questionable Content_ #1039
    http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1039

http://www.donarmstrong.com              http://rzlab.ucr.edu
_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

---

From: Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2008 15:37:31 +0200

> opinions about it and other licenses which enact clauses like this.

For one discussion, see the section 'Patent Reciprocity and Open
Standards':

http://www.rosenlaw.com/DefiningOpenStandards.pdf

There is more than meets the eye here, although I would agree that this
particular license have the nice property of being short and easy to
understand.

This license could be a candidate for use in
<http://josefsson.org/bcp78broken/draft-josefsson-free-standards-howto.html#anchor7>...

/Simon

---

From: "TS Glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2008 07:05:36 -0700

Pekka - this is an unworkable IPR License -What's wrong with this license is 
that it assumes that ALL of the genesis comes from within Google (or as 
posted here from within the IETF) and is covered by the IETF's license. 
Just painting a 'open and totally non-restrictive Use License' to any and 
all IP assumes that Google in this instance owns that IP and since it 
doesn't this license is meaningless in those cases.

For instance if the IETF is doing a project on IP that is also under 
commercial development outside the IETF then this license would be 
meaningless. If company "A" develops network protocol "YAYA" in their labs 
and the IETF is doing its own variant of "YAYA", then who's license is the 
real one. The company who is privately working on the IP or the IETF? - the 
IETF would own its own genesis, but since there was other sources of 
genesis...

Todd Glassey

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2008 10:15:51 -0700

How does that differ from an RFC 1988 license, or the kinds of  
licenses currently described in the IPR WG?

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2008 20:26:17 +0300 (EEST)

On Thu, 3 Apr 2008, Fred Baker wrote:
> How does that differ from an RFC 1988 license, or the kinds of licenses 
> currently described in the IPR WG?

In a number of fundamental ways, such as:
  - RFC1988 grant applies only to the specific IETF standards track 
activity (the license specifically restricts incorporating the work in 
proprietary modules)
  - RFC1988 license terminates only if someone asserts against HP, 
instead of asserts against anyone
  - The scope of required reciprocity is wider than the specification 
in question ("search address technology") which may allow HP to abuse 
the license by using some other organizations restricted IPR in the 
area of 'search address technology', daring them to sue.

---

From: Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2008 20:06:07 +0200

> area of 'search address technology', daring them to sue.

Further:
 - RFC1988 grants rights to specific patents, which in general may not
have been all the patents related that particular technology owned by
the patent holder.

I brought up for discussion whether Google's patent license may be free
software compatible on the FSF Europe discussion list, see
<http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/discussion/2008-April/thread.html>.
If it doesn't seem entirely unacceptable, I'll mention it in
draft-josefsson-free-standards-howto as one example of a patent license
that companies can use if they want to make their IETF standard free
software compatible.

/Simon

---

From: "TS Glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2008 11:31:49 -0700

Yo Fred -

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Fred Baker" <[email-masked]>
To: "Pekka Savola" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2008 10:15 AM
Subject: Re: Now this is an ipr license I like..

>> or in part) of this specification.

This license speaks to derivative IP and patent specifics. Bluntly what this 
says is that "if you sue someone over your damages for using this IP the 
license to use the IP is revoked" but since there is NO WAY to revoke an 
IETF license that wont work here.

Unfortunately the IETF's "Any and All uses" ALSO means that the IP can be 
used as a "cause of litigation" as well, but that is self-evident, right 
Fred?

> >If You institute patent litigation

OK... So then the issue of how the releases against the genesis of the IP 
are documented becomes important here, as does the processes through which 
the IETF communicates to the Sponsoring Entitie's through their 
Representitives.

Here then is a claim saying that 'if you are forced to result in IP 
litigation against those who would violate your IP rights that you lose your 
rights to use the IP' meaning that NO ONE can protect or patent or copyright 
any materials created under this license.

The problem is that the IETF cannot do that since it has already given the 
uses away for any and all uses, including litigation against some of the 
participants or relying parties so this caveat of "loss of rights" cannot 
possibly be implemented under the current licenses and as such can NEVER be 
applied to those other IP's without the approval of ALL of the parties 
involved or those holding rights for them.

---

From: Florian Weimer <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 06 Apr 2008 15:31:06 +0200

> activity (the license specifically restricts incorporating the work in 

This isn't obvious to me--"this specification" in Google's statement
seems to be pretty narrow, too.
_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2008 08:26:47 +0300 (EEST)

> seems to be pretty narrow, too.

Sure.  It could be wider.  But many reciprocal licenses (e.g. latest 
by cisco as an example [1]) the language usually is like "any ... 
patents ... necessary for practicing the standard".

Now, if the specification includes MAY or SHOULD statements, those are 
not necessary to implement or practise the standard, and could be 
infringing.

In this kind of scenario, "implementations of this specification" is 
better than e.g. "to the extent required by interoperable 
implementation of this specification".

Likewise, when the IETF is producing informational or experimental 
specs, standards track restrictions are a problem.

[1] the latest from the IPR pages: 
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/IPR/cisco-ipr-draft-ietf-avt-audio-t140c.txt