[standards-jig] Question on JEP-0001

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at jabber.org
Sun May 5 17:55:15 UTC 2002


I propose the following wording (a concatenation of text from me and
Ashvil):

******

This document has been placed in the public domain. The authors affirm
that they or their representatives have made no intellectual property
claims associated with the protocols defined in this document. They affirm
additionally that if they or their representatives make any such
intellectual property claim in the future, the protocols defined in this
document will be licensed for use on a royalty-free basis.

******

Since the JSF does not (yet) have independent legal counsel, I may run
this by counsel at Jabber, Inc.

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:

> On 5/3/02 2:11 PM, "Peter Saint-Andre" <stpeter at jabber.org> wrote:
> 
> > 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?
> 
> Yup.  
> 
> One thing that w3c has been wrestling with is people wanting to patent
> standards proposals/technologies to preempt the possibility of someone else
> patenting it.  From what I understand it can help if disputes arise later.
> If you take this to Jabber Inc lawyers you might ask if that's something we
> (JSF) might want to consider.
> 
> -iain
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Standards-JIG mailing list
> Standards-JIG at jabber.org
> http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/standards-jig
> 




More information about the Standards mailing list