On 05/09/2012 01:26 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
Hi Mike,
On 05/09/2012 08:34 PM, Michael Thomas wrote:
On 05/09/2012 12:17 PM, Eran Hammer wrote:
Whoever you talk to for legal advice about IPR issues related to
standards you might implement. My only point is, this group is not
qualified to comment on IPR matters.
The IETF gets to decide whether it wants to create standards that
use (potentially) encumbered IP. It is the wg's responsibility to
decide whether it is a necessary evil, or whether the damage can be
routed around. How a working group does that without having a
discussion is a mystery to me.
Yeah, its tricky stuff. The key point as I understand it is
not to get into discussion about licensing arrangements or
other commercial matters, nor about the validity of the IPR
itself, which are not our business. While we may or may not
have opinions that 90+% of the output of all patent offices
in the ICT space is pure rubbish, those are not directly
relevant for the WG. If you're not sure, ask the chairs or
me and we can try help.
Yes, I completely agree.
The question is as Hannes stated: does this new information
change the WG's opinion of this document or not. Silence is
taken to mean "not" in this case.
That's not what I read Eran as asking for:
"So no discussion of this is expected on the list - correct?"
That a lot different from "off topic discussion".
Mike
_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
OAuth@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
