[xiph-commits] r18674 - websites/opus-codec.org/license

[jm at svn.xiph.org]

Author: jm
Date: 2012-10-26 10:47:30 -0700 (Fri, 26 Oct 2012)
New Revision: 18674

Added:
   websites/opus-codec.org/license/other_disclosures.shtml.en
Removed:
   websites/opus-codec.org/license/other_disclosures.shtml.in
Log:
oops, wrong language


Copied: websites/opus-codec.org/license/other_disclosures.shtml.en (from rev 18673, websites/opus-codec.org/license/other_disclosures.shtml.in)
===================================================================
--- websites/opus-codec.org/license/other_disclosures.shtml.en	                        (rev 0)
+++ websites/opus-codec.org/license/other_disclosures.shtml.en	2012-10-26 17:47:30 UTC (rev 18674)
@@ -0,0 +1,52 @@
+<!--#include virtual="/ssi/header.include" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/ssi/contentheader.include" -->
+
+<h1>Other disclosures</h1>
+
+<p>
+While Xiph.Org, Broadcom, and Microsoft filed IPR disclosures giving
+ royalty-free licenses to their patents used in Opus, two companies that did
+ not directly participate in the development of Opus, Qualcomm and Huawei,
+ filed IPR disclosures with potentially royalty-bearing terms.
+The IETF allows <b>anyone</b> (and their dog) to file an IPR disclosures if
+ they <b>think</b> that their patents "covers or <b>may</b> ultimately cover"
+ a standard.
+In fact, for any organization who can be said to have <i>contributed</i> in any
+ (very loosely defined) way, these IPR statements are not just allowed, but
+ required.
+It is thus safer for organisations to declare as much as they can.
+As an example, one can find similar non-free Qualcomm IPR statements on both
+ <a href="https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1390/">SIP</a> and
+ <a href="https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1389/">SDP</a>.
+To our advantage, however, the IETF IPR disclosure policies require companies
+ to provide the actual patent numbers.
+This allows anyone to verify these claims for themselves, which is definitely
+ a good thing.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+Unfortunately, when it comes to patents, it is difficult to say much without
+ making lawyers nervous.
+However, we can say something quite direct: <b>external counsel has advised us that Opus can be
+ implemented without the need to license the patents disclosed by Qualcomm or
+ Huawei</b>.
+We can also say that Mozilla is confident enough in Opus to ship it to hundreds
+ of millions of Firefox users.
+Similarly, Cisco is also supporting Opus in at least one product.
+More companies are expected to do the same soon.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+Mozilla invested significant legal resources into avoiding known patent
+ thickets when designing Opus.
+Whenever possible, we used processes and methods that have been long known in
+ the field and which are considered patent-free.
+In addition, we filed numerous patent applications on the new things we 
+ invented to help defend the Opus community.
+As a result, Opus is available on a royalty-free basis and can be deployed by
+ anyone, including other open-source projects.
+Everyone knows this is an incredibly challenging legal environment to operate
+ in, but we think we've succeeded.
+</p>
+
+<!--#include virtual="/ssi/footer.include" -->
\ No newline at end of file

Deleted: websites/opus-codec.org/license/other_disclosures.shtml.in
===================================================================
--- websites/opus-codec.org/license/other_disclosures.shtml.in	2012-10-26 17:46:31 UTC (rev 18673)
+++ websites/opus-codec.org/license/other_disclosures.shtml.in	2012-10-26 17:47:30 UTC (rev 18674)
@@ -1,52 +0,0 @@
-<!--#include virtual="/ssi/header.include" -->
-<!--#include virtual="/ssi/contentheader.include" -->
-
-<h1>Other disclosures</h1>
-
-<p>
-While Xiph.Org, Broadcom, and Microsoft filed IPR disclosures giving
- royalty-free licenses to their patents used in Opus, two companies that did
- not directly participate in the development of Opus, Qualcomm and Huawei,
- filed IPR disclosures with potentially royalty-bearing terms.
-The IETF allows <b>anyone</b> (and their dog) to file an IPR disclosures if
- they <b>think</b> that their patents "covers or <b>may</b> ultimately cover"
- a standard.
-In fact, for any organization who can be said to have <i>contributed</i> in any
- (very loosely defined) way, these IPR statements are not just allowed, but
- required.
-It is thus safer for organisations to declare as much as they can.
-As an example, one can find similar non-free Qualcomm IPR statements on both
- <a href="https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1390/">SIP</a> and
- <a href="https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1389/">SDP</a>.
-To our advantage, however, the IETF IPR disclosure policies require companies
- to provide the actual patent numbers.
-This allows anyone to verify these claims for themselves, which is definitely
- a good thing.
-</p>
-
-<p>
-Unfortunately, when it comes to patents, it is difficult to say much without
- making lawyers nervous.
-However, we can say something quite direct: <b>external counsel has advised us that Opus can be
- implemented without the need to license the patents disclosed by Qualcomm or
- Huawei</b>.
-We can also say that Mozilla is confident enough in Opus to ship it to hundreds
- of millions of Firefox users.
-Similarly, Cisco is also supporting Opus in at least one product.
-More companies are expected to do the same soon.
-</p>
-
-<p>
-Mozilla invested significant legal resources into avoiding known patent
- thickets when designing Opus.
-Whenever possible, we used processes and methods that have been long known in
- the field and which are considered patent-free.
-In addition, we filed numerous patent applications on the new things we 
- invented to help defend the Opus community.
-As a result, Opus is available on a royalty-free basis and can be deployed by
- anyone, including other open-source projects.
-Everyone knows this is an incredibly challenging legal environment to operate
- in, but we think we've succeeded.
-</p>
-
-<!--#include virtual="/ssi/footer.include" -->
\ No newline at end of file