[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: vrrp and IPR



I think we have to make it public that we considered the information in the implementation report sufficient evidence that the licensing was not a problem.

Alex, I think this should go into the writeup.

--On 9. november 2003 10:33 -0600 Alex Zinin <zinin@psg.com> wrote:

An important thing here is that we have a lot (clearly more than two
required by the process) of implementations and the vast majority of
them did not acquire the license (can't say all, of course). For us
'did not conclude licensing was required' is the same as 'licensed
under reasonable and non-discriminatory terms'. So, it seems to me
that we should not request the licensing statements in the report, and
"instead apply the normal requirements for the advancement of Internet
Standards"

Can I make this part public?  The NetBSD folk are trying to decide what
to to about VRRP.

This last para?


Note, that folks have to do their own risk assessment on whether they
should implement or not and whether to request a license or not. We
shouldn't advise them on this, as we may unintentionally mislead them.

Alex