[standards-jig] Question on JEP-0001

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at jabber.org
Fri May 3 16:11:04 CDT 2002


Yes, royalty-free licensing seems most appropriate. However, it seems that
no IP claim is the norm here. Shall we have two sets of wording?

1. No IP claims -- this is the default.
2. If IP claim, royalty-free licensing.

Make sense?

Peter

--
Peter Saint-Andre
email+jabber: stpeter at jabber.org
weblog: http://www.saint-andre.com/blog/

On Fri, 3 May 2002, Iain Shigeoka wrote:

> --- David Waite <mass at akuma.org> wrote:
> > This is more of a legal/business question perhaps, I don't know if this 
> > is the best list for the topic :-)
> 
> I think that standards-jig is appropriate.
> 
> I believe it is important to provide mechanisms for people
> with patented IP to contribute it to the Jabber protocols
> while retaining their patent rights.  Royalty free licensing of
> patents for particular application to Jabber protocols would be
> acceptable (while allowing them to charge royalties for usage
> of that IP outside of JEP scope).
> 
> I'm +1 on your proposal (and also agree that software patents
> suck).
> 
> -iain
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Health - your guide to health and wellness
> http://health.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> Standards-JIG mailing list
> Standards-JIG at jabber.org
> http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/standards-jig
> 




More information about the Standards-JIG mailing list