Subject: IPRs on SEND/CGAs?

From: Fernando Gont <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2010 17:00:39 -0300

Hi, folks,

It has been pointed out to me of the IPRs on SEND/CGAs, which I checked at:

* https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?option=rfc_search&rfc_search=3971
* https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?option=rfc_search&rfc_search=3972

KAME also commented on these (and other) IPRs:
* http://www.kame.net/newsletter/20040525/

Can anybody confirm that it is required to get a license from MS to
implement this?

Also: anybody aware of freely available implementations of SEND?

Thanks,
-- 
Fernando Gont
e-mail: [email-masked] || [email-masked]
PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1

---

From: "Laganier, Julien" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2010 15:15:00 -0700

Fernando Gont wrote:
> *
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?option=rfc_search&rfc_search=3
> 971
> *
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?option=rfc_search&rfc_search=3
> 972
> 

No idea.
 
> Also: anybody aware of freely available implementations of SEND?

DoCoMo USA Labs published a BSD-licensed implementation of SEND for Linux and FreeBSD some years ago. It's no longer available on their website, however, but it seems available there:

http://www.freebsdsoftware.org/net-mgmt/send.html

--julien

---

From: Ana Kukec <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 02 Oct 2010 01:24:20 +0200

Hi Fernando,

> Also: anybody aware of freely available implementations of SEND?

FreeBSD provides the SEND implementation (BSD license). The 
implementation consists of the send kernel module and FreeBSD port. The 
send module contains the kernel-side SEND support for *BSD - send(4). It 
appeared first in FreeBSD 9.0. For more details please read  
http://people.freebsd.org/~anchie/SeND_AsiaBSDCon_2010.pdf or send(4) 
manual page. The userland implementation is based on DoCoMo's initial 
SEND implementation. It is about to be submitted to a FreeBSD ports 
collection. At the moment you can fetch it here: 
http://people.freebsd.org/~anchie/send-net-mgmt/

Ana

---

From: Bob Hinden <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2010 18:10:50 -0700

Fernando,

> Can anybody confirm that it is required to get a license from MS to

I can't speak to that directly and I am not a lawyer, but it's my understanding of IPR that a license is never required to just implement something.  One might need a license to ship it in a product that is sold.

Bob

> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> [email-masked]
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Fernando Gont <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 02 Oct 2010 05:53:05 -0300

>> It has been pointed out to me of the IPRs on SEND/CGAs, which I
[....]
>> Can anybody confirm that it is required to get a license from MS
>> to implement this?
> 
> I can't speak to that directly and I am not a lawyer, but it's my
> understanding of IPR that a license is never required to just
> implement something.  One might need a license to ship it in a
> product that is sold.

Well, that's sort of what I meant :-) -- sorry for the sloppy wording.

e.g., would FreeBSD (developers?) need a license to ship the OS with a
SEND implementation?

-- does it really change the state of affairs if the product is sold vs.
given away for free?

Thanks!

Kind regards,

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 02 Oct 2010 17:57:26 +0900

> -- does it really change the state of affairs if the product is sold vs.

you really need to ask your lawyer.  

though i am sure you will get plenty of advice here.  if not, ask on
nanog.  </sarcasm>

randy

---

From: Fernando Gont <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 02 Oct 2010 08:10:56 -0300

> you really need to ask your lawyer.  

I thought this might have been discussed here, as this ends up effecting
whether this gets implemented or not, and possibly whether this gets
deployed or not. (I have seen this sort of discussions and
clarifications for other technologies, in other wg's).

FWIW, not only I do not have a ipr-illustrated lawyer, but I'm not
willing to pay for a lawyer to illustrate me about something I'm not
planning to implement or ship myself, either.

Thanks,

---

From: Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 2 Oct 2010 14:07:24 +0200

Fernando,

current patent law has many interesting properties (read: deep flaws).
One of the most interesting ones is that it consistently tends to put at a disadvantage (i.e., threatens to severely punish) those who openly admit or claim to know anything.

If you find a discussion of patent issues in an open forum, the participants were either
-- forced at gunpoint
-- at least mildly suicidal
-- or don't even know as much about patent law to at least recognize this principle.

The conclusion may not be easily accessible to the logical, "I want to work based on the actual facts" minds that you would typically find in us engineers, but the advice to consult a lawyer is exactly to the point.
(If you cannot do that, you can still try to gather some hearsay in an unrecorded hallway conversation.)

Gruesse, Carsten

---

From: Bob Hinden <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 2 Oct 2010 09:23:04 -0700

> though i am sure you will get plenty of advice here.  if not, ask on

On that line, I would add that there is a lot of open source technology, there are a lot of IPR claims that likely apply to open source technology, patent trolls file a lot of lawsuits against product companies claiming damages, and product companies file lawsuits against each other.  I think it is pretty rare for anyone to file a lawsuit against an open source project/distribution.  I would observe there isn't any way to collect any money from such a lawsuit.   The risk is very low.

My advice regarding Send/CGAs, that is worth what you paid for it, is to not worry about needing a license to ship the OS with a SEND implementation.  But it is your call.

Bob

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 20:19:40 +0300

Sorry for the late response. As others have noted, it is best to consult 
someone who understands these issues, typical impact (or lack thereof) 
to open source, and the rules in the declarations:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?option=rfc_search&rfc_search=3972

But since one of the declarations is from Ericsson I will say that NO 
license is needed from Ericsson (with one and easily fulfilled condition 
-- read the declaration for the details).

Jari