Re: [emergency] Successful Emergency Management IPR Transition Ballot

[Renato Iannella <renato@nicta.com.au>]

On 4 Oct 2006, at 21:30, Rex Brooks wrote:

> I may be wrong, but as I recall from an earlier briefing, "Limited  
> Terms" allows the party with IPR encumbrance for their donations to  
> "set" their terms, which means it opens the door to "lawyering"  
> which is one of those proverbial "slippery slopes," while RAND has  
> more specifically spelled out terms.

This is the "confusing" bit between sections 10.2.2 and 10.2.3 of the  
IPR policy [1].

10.2.2 (RF on RAND Terms) says that license terms *BEYOND* the common  
terms may be included.

10.2.3 (RF on Limited Terms) says that parties *MAY NOT* impose any  
further conditions.

Given this interpretation, the latter option seems better.

Jamie - have I interpreted this correctly?

Cheers...  Renato Iannella
National ICT Australia (NICTA)

[1] <http://www.oasis-open.org/who/intellectualproperty.php>


--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This email and any attachments may be confidential. They may contain legally
privileged information or copyright material. You should not read, copy,
use or disclose them without authorisation. If you are not an intended
recipient, please contact us at once by return email and then delete both
messages. We do not accept liability in connection with computer virus,
data corruption, delay, interruption, unauthorised access or unauthorised
amendment. This notice should not be removed.