[jdev] [Fwd: Re: [MMUSIC] IPR statement on draft-ietf-mmusic-ice-15.txt]
stpeter at jabber.org
Fri May 11 12:24:13 CDT 2007
FYI re XEP-0176 (Jingle ICE Transport).
(I have not yet investigated the patents in question. Those who wish to
remain untainted may not wish to do so.)
-------- Original Message --------
Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 11:17:38 -0600
From: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter at jabber.org>
To: Colin Perkins <csp at csperkins.org>
Cc: mmusic at ietf.org
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] IPR statement on draft-ietf-mmusic-ice-15.txt
Colin Perkins wrote:
> The secretariat informs us that updated IPR disclosures have been
> submitted pertaining to ICE (These were submitted on 13th April -
> apologies for the delayed notification):
What is the appropriate venue to discuss these disclosures? Seeing none,
I reply on the MMUSIC list.
The patent holder states that it shall grant licenses "on reasonable
terms and conditions", but the terms and conditions are not defined.
Therefore this is merely a promissory note. A definition of the terms
and conditions would be helpful.
The following text is an improvement over the original version:
In addition, the Patent Holder grants a "free" license to any
prospective licensee if such prospective licensee commits to
license its own essential patent(s) or essential patent claim(s)
(if any) for implementation of any IETF specification for "free".
The newly-added words "if any" are particularly helpful, since some
entities (e.g., open-source projects) do not typically hold patents or
make patent claims. Will such an entity need to explicitly register with
or apply to the patent holder in order to obtain a license? What
penalties will ensue if such an entity does not obtain a license?
The text does not define the procedure by which a prospective licensee
can become a licensee. Is that procedure still to be defined? Presumably
the procedure will include a mechanism by which the prospective licensee
"commits to license its own essential patent(s) or essential patent
claim(s) (if any) for implementation of any IETF specification for
'free'". However, in the absence of a defined procedure it is difficult
Given the strong and widespread interest in the NAT traversal
technologies specified in draft-ietf-mmusic-ice, more clarity regarding
the licensing terms, conditions, and procedures would be appreciated.
XMPP Standards Foundation
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 7358 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
More information about the JDev