[standards-jig] Question on JEP-0001

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at jabber.org
Fri May 3 14:58:16 UTC 2002


I was proposing that as the default language -- no IP claims -- because
AFAIK there are no IP claims associated with any existing JEP. If and when
some future JEP author does have IP claim associated with a JEP, then we
will need to formulate a policy (or, naturally, formulate that policy
ahead of time). But I think for now this simple statement will cover
everything we have done so far. But I need to read David Waite's post
again more carefuly -- his mind works more like a lawyer's than mine does.

Peter

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

On Fri, 3 May 2002, Ashvil wrote:

> > "The authors affirm that they have made no intellectual property claims
> > associated with the protocols defined in this document."
> >
> > If all JEPs contained this wording (or something similar to it -- we can
> > look at what the IETF and W3C use for their docs), would that address your
> > concerns?
> 
> Yes. This would address my concern.
> 
> To be more fair to the authors, another statement that would work could be
> "Any intellectual property that the authors hold associated with the
> protocols defined in this document will be licensed for use on a
> royalty-free basis."
> 
> This would enable the authors (or their companies) to file patents and still
> contribute to the JEP process.
> 
> Regards,
> Ashvil
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Standards-JIG mailing list
> Standards-JIG at jabber.org
> http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/standards-jig
> 




More information about the Standards mailing list