SACRED IPR - draft mail for Friday

[Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi All,

At the Paris meeting [1,2] Lucent and Phoenix agreed to
actions to specify their IPR positions wrt PAK and SPEKE
respectively.

Unfortunately the results so far do not, in our opinion,
represent significant progress.

Essentially, Lucent have re-iterated their license terms for
PAK (part of Planet9's open source license), but any other
implementation would be RAND. To quote their response:

        1) PAK has been implemented as part of the open-source
           PLAN 9 Operating System, whose OSI-certified Lucent
           Public License Version 1.02 is available at
              http://www.cs.bell-labs.com/plan9dist/license.html.
	2) Any other use of IPR associated with PAK will be licenced
           by Lucent under RAND, if it becomes an IETF standard.

Phoenix have indicated that they can offer RF terms, but
only for clients on "standard personal computers" - they
maintain their RAND terms for servers.

We think the above captures the position, but of course
Lucent or Phoenix folks can clarify if we've gotten
something wrong.

Magnus and I have communicated our opinions of these
terms to the relevant folks. Basically, this amounts to
an opinion that neither scheme seems attractive on
these terms. They have both said they'd get back to
us with further information, but since the Vancouver
meeting is so close, we want to get this information
to the list now, to help us all make (or not make)
travel plans.

We'd ask you to comment on these terms, in particular
whether you'd find them attractive enough to warrant
this WG doing new work. (Please don't get into invective
though - the only question of interest is whether or
not you find these terms ok for sacred, we don't want
your more general IPR opinions please!).

Regards,
Stephen & Magnus.

[1] http://www.imc.org/ietf-sacred/mail-archive/msg00665.html
[2]
https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/proceeding_interim.cgi?meeting_num=63