This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------070605030700030609010007
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

To anyone who is curious,
The attached, unmodified e-mail is from Robert Barr, VP of Intellectual 
Property for Cisco and explains their policy with respect to VRRP. I saw 
plenty of messages that were supposedly from him posted all over the 
Internet, but really needed to see it from him in order to trust it.

I gather from his message that so long as the "product" is 100% 
compliant with RFC 2338, no more; no less, then anyone is free to 
implement it without charge, royalties, and without Cisco asserting 
patent claims against you, even if you're selling the product for 
profit. Step outside the bounds of RFC 2338, however, and you're fair 
game unless you have a royalty-bearing license with Cisco. They also 
have a right to assert patents against anyone who asserts a patent of 
their own against Cisco.

Please correct me if I've misinterpreted the message.

The question still remains, but hopefully can be answered now: Are the 
VRRP license conditions incompatible with NetBSD's project goals?

~Mike.

--------------070605030700030609010007
Content-Type: message/rfc822;
 name="Re: RFC 2338 (VRRP) and US patent #5,473,599"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline;
 filename="Re: RFC 2338 (VRRP) and US patent #5,473,599"

	by lsh131.siteprotect.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hAOJwhD18461
	for <m.hertrick@neovera.com>; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 13:58:43 -0600
  by sj-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 24 Nov 2003 12:00:05 +0000
	by sj-core-3.cisco.com (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id hAOJwdrX026823;
	Mon, 24 Nov 2003 11:58:39 -0800 (PST)
Reply-To: <rbarr@cisco.com>
From: "Robert Barr " <rbarr@cisco.com>
To: "'Michael Hertrick'" <m.hertrick@neovera.com>
Subject: RE: RFC 2338 (VRRP) and US patent #5,473,599
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 11:58:39 -0800
Message-ID: <009401c3b2c5$5ae64e10$6601a8c0@amer.cisco.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <3FBED170.4030604@neovera.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Mr Hertrick:

The following is Cisco's policy with respect to VRRP:


Cisco will not assert any patents owned or controlled by Cisco  against any
party  for making, using, selling, importing or offering for sale a product
that implements IETF RFC 2338, provided, however that:

Cisco retains the right to assert its patents  (including the right to claim
past royalties) against any party that asserts a patent it owns or controls
(either directly or indirectly) against Cisco or any of Cisco's affiliates
or successors in title; and Cisco retains the right to assert its patents
against any product or portion
thereof that is not necessary for compliance with RFC 2338.

If you have any questions, or if you would prefer a royalty-bearing license,
please contact me.

Robert Barr
VP, Intellectual Property
Worldwide Patent Counsel
Cisco Systems
408-525-9706

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Hertrick [mailto:m.hertrick@neovera.com] 
> Sent: Friday, November 21, 2003 7:01 PM
> To: rbarr@cisco.com
> Subject: RFC 2338 (VRRP) and US patent #5,473,599
> 
> 
> Mr. Barr,
> 
> What does Cisco ask in return for a license to write and use a VRRP 
> implementation in accordance with RFC 2338?
> 
> Thank you,
> 
> Michael Hertrick
> 571-437-5911
> Neovera, Inc.
> 
> 



--------------070605030700030609010007--