<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Thank you Ryan, this is getting clearer to me now and hopefully to
others.<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 3/11/2016 8:35 μμ, Ryan Sleevi
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CACvaWvYDj5BeTkGxAdnDEay9BkmfDOjZ_coi5vepkAq+ToaGaA@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr"><br>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 11:20 AM,
Dimitris Zacharopoulos via Public <span dir="ltr"><<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:public@cabforum.org"
target="_blank">public@cabforum.org</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF">Well, my question was not intended
to interfere with the other threads regarding the
current ballots or the sequence of events that have to
take place. I was more curious if there is a clear
understanding among members whether or not the
requirements MUST be free of patents. So far, I didn't
read something in the Bylaws or the IPR policy that
suggest that the CA/B Forum is required to produce
patent-free guidelines but, I am sure members more
familiar with legal language will correct me if I'm
wrong :-) <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Right, this is currently a point of discussion/debate.
There are some who have represented that, because the goal
(stated in the IPR policy) is that the Forum "will
ordinarily not approve a Guideline if it is aware that
Essential
Claims exist which are not available on RF terms" (Section
2 of <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://cabforum.org/wp-content/uploads/CABF-IPR-Policy-v.1.2.pdf">https://cabforum.org/wp-content/uploads/CABF-IPR-Policy-v.1.2.pdf</a>
), that it's effectively a statement that the Forum WILL
NOT (that is, 'ordinarily' is superfluous) approve them,
or that it MUST NOT improve them (Virginia's example of
stating that CAs will be required to infringe)</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
If there is a number of options I can choose from, and I know that
there is an option under the IP of another CA, I am not "required"
to infringe. I simply choose not to use that method and I use the
other methods which are royalty free (or I use my own compatible
methods).<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CACvaWvYDj5BeTkGxAdnDEay9BkmfDOjZ_coi5vepkAq+ToaGaA@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>There are some (and in the interest of full disclosure,
myself included) that disagree, and see it similar to you.</div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF"> AFAIK only the actual documents
are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International license.<br>
<br>
It would be interested to learn two things:<br>
<ol>
<li>whether it is dictated in the bylaws or the IPR
policy that the CA/B Forum must produce patent-free
guidelines (otherwise it is probably allowed to
include some patented solutions, among others with
royalty-free license)<br>
</li>
<li>hear if members feel that all guidelines should
cover methods and practices that are patent-free or
not.</li>
</ol>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>Section 7.3.2 provides some guidance to your question
#1, because it further outlines what possible steps may be
taken after an Exclusion Notice over an Essential Claim
has been filed. Relevant to your question is the first
item - "The initial concern has been resolved, enabling
the work on the Guideline to continue. " - which would
suggest that one possible result of the PAG is to allow
the encumbered method to be included, so long as
unencumbered methods were available. </div>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
This makes better sense now. I understand that the IPR Policy says:
"We will do our best to have patent-free guidelines to promote
widest adoption. If we get essential claims, we will form a PAG".
The PAG's possible conclusions are listed in 7.3.2 and they all have
a goal to resolve the patent issue, including f. "alternative
licensing terms should be considered" which is different to an RF
licensing. Doesn't this prove that it is possible to have a case
(however rare that may be) where some non-RF methods are allowed to
be used in the guidelines?<br>
<br>
Dimitris.<br>
</body>
</html>