Subject: Re: [codec] Last Call: <draft-ietf-codec-opus-12.txt> (Definition of the Opus Audio Codec) to Proposed Standard

From: Ron <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 May 2012 18:11:07 +0930

On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 11:28:59PM -0700, SM wrote:
> At 18:40 30-04-2012, Ron wrote:
> >If this clause becomes a blocker, then we should simply remove it, but in that
> >case it would be good to have clear reasons why it became a blocker, since the
> >things you say you fear here, I see as already being prohibited anyway.
> 
> The text in Section 10 is ambiguous.
> 
> Given all the efforts that went into RFC 6569, it's odd to see the
> text being discussed during the Last Call instead of the WGLC.

Nobody raised any questions about it to discuss until Robert's AD review.
And since it's essentially the same text as had been included in previously
published RFCs, that didn't seem particularly surprising either.

Whatever resolution we arrive at over this, it doesn't effect the substantive
content of the proposed standard. And the question in question does seem like
something that's out of scope for the CODEC WG to answer in general anyway,
beyond giving the rationale for adding it in this case.

I'm happy to defer to whatever the broader community thinks will work best
on this one.

 Best,
 Ron

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 01 May 2012 12:10:58 -0400

For what it's worth, I support authors' (and this is actually one of the
few times I mean that rather than editors) right to make such a grant. I
believe the community is significantly better served by having
additional grants in the RFC, and strongly support us permitting them. I
believe our current policy allows them; if the community consensus is
that is not the case I support changes to the policy up to an
appropriate BCP to permit this.

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2012 23:28:59 -0700

At 15:53 30-04-2012, Stephan Wenger wrote:
>This subject was also raised by our AD on the codec mailing list.  The
>statement is about spec text copyright (with the possible exception of the
>word "use", which is loaded in this context, see BSD license and implicit
>patent grant ambiguity).  Insofar, the patent licensing statement received
>appear to be irrelevant to this discussion.

Ok.

Regards,
-sm