Matthew Grooms wrote:
> Timo Teräs wrote:
>> Royalty-Free, Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory License to All
> Well, I'm not a lawyer but I read that as the terms that Microsoft is
> willing to license the technology to a another party. I don't see where
> it says that they don't plan to bill you for it. It does sound like they
> are agreeable to a reasonable, non-discriminatory flat license fee as
> opposed to license fee based on units shipped. Does royalty free mean
> they don't want any financial compensation for the license grant?
IETF explanation (RFC 3905 section 3) on that option is:
b) Royalty-Free, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory License to All
Implementers: The Patent Holder is willing, upon request, to grant
a license to its Necessary Patent Claims to all persons on a
royalty-free basis (i.e., no royalty or other fee) and under other
reasonable and non-discriminatory terms and conditions, to make,
have made, use, import, offer to sell, sell, and distribute
technology that implements such an IETF specification.
So there should be no fee involved. But we should probably ask approval to
use it from Microsoft. Should I write them?
> I'm sure Manu knows about this more than I do as it sounds like he did
> some research on the subject. With that said, if it does turn out to be
> a truly free license grant then I would love to see OA support added to
> ipsec-tools :)
The updated IPR statement I quoted is dated Feb 3, 2006. Which is well
after the original posts by Manu around early 2005. At that time the only
IPR statement was https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/78/ which says only that
Microsoft has patents on the matter.