[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [chairs] reminder to chairs: OASIS IPR Policy member review
Drummond: I would like to request that you send this comment to the comment list at ipr-member-review@lists.oasis-open.org so that the Board may consider how to make these definitions more clear. -Karl Drummond Reed wrote: > Karl, > > I might be the first one to say this, and feel free to hit me with a giant > brickbat if you think I'm nuts, but in the generally clear new IPR policy > documents, one terminology issue has left me completely baffled. > > "Unrestricted RF" vs. "Restricted RF" modes. > > When I first saw these terms, I was inituitively certain of their meaning: > the first means royalty-free with no other licensing restrictions and the > second means royalty-free but with the possibility of other licensing > restrictions that still need to be negotiated with the licensor. > > Imagine my shock when reading the IPR FAQ documents that my intuitive > understanding was 180 degrees wrong. > > "Unrestricted RF" actually means "royalty-free but with no restrictions on > the LICENSOR to also require negotation of other terms from licensees" and > "Restricted RF" means "royalty-free plus the LICENSOR is also restricted > from requiring negotation of any other licensing terms from licensees". > > Exactly the opposite of what I thought. > > While it's possible to screw one's head around hard enough to understand > these definitions, in trying to write messages to my two TCs to explain the > need for an upcoming IPR mode vote, I found myself having to do triple > backflips to explain why two IPR modes had these incredibly confusing names. > I finally stopped and wrote you this message instead. > > Am I truly the first one to bring this up? Wouldn't it completely avoid this > issue to have just called these modes "Partial RF" and "Full RF"? Or > "Encumbered RF" and "Unencumbered RF"? > > At least then it would avoid the potential 180 degree misinterpretation of > the current terms. > > =Drummond > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Karl F. Best [mailto:karl.best@oasis-open.org] > Sent: Friday, July 30, 2004 11:55 AM > To: chairs@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: [chairs] reminder to chairs: OASIS IPR Policy member review > > TC chairs: > > On 9 July OASIS announced to its membership a draft IPR Policy that has > been developed by our Board, and requested that members review and > provide comment on this draft. (See > http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/members/200407/msg00002.html) > > One of the documents in this review is the proposed Transition Policy, > which describes how TCs will transition to the new IPR Policy by > selecting an IPR mode to operate under, after which the OASIS members > (organizations and individuals) represented in the TC will vote to > ratify that selection. > > In addition to the other issues in the IPR Policy that you individually > and your companies may be interested in, I would also appreciate your > TCs looking at, discussing, and commenting on the transition to the new > IPR Policy, as well as any other parts of the Policy that will affect > the day-to-day operations of the TC. > > -Karl > > ================================================================= > Karl F. Best > Vice President, OASIS > office +1 978.667.5115 x206 mobile +1 978.761.1648 > karl.best@oasis-open.org http://www.oasis-open.org > > > > -- ================================================================= Karl F. Best Vice President, OASIS office +1 978.667.5115 x206 mobile +1 978.761.1648 karl.best@oasis-open.org http://www.oasis-open.org
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]