Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> the result will (appropriately) be to have more >> finely tuned IPR declarations, which make it clear that the declaration >> is targeted at the specific standard in question, and is not applicable >> beyond that, inside or outside of the IETF standardization process. As >> far as I can tell, there is, and should be, nothing that prohibits IPR >> holders from making such refined declarations, > > But there is. The derivative works statements are limited to those > allowed in the Legend Instructions; see clause 6c in > http://trustee.ietf.org/docs/IETF_Trust_Legal_Provisions_for_IETF_Docs_8-13-08.pdf As far as I understand, that clause is about copyrights, not patents. Patent disclosures can state almost anything, and can certainly say that they are only valid if document X becomes an IETF standard. >> and such declarations >> will easily meet the requirements for being a valid IPR declaration to >> the IETF. IMO this simply underscores the valid separation of patent >> rights and copyright rights in the IETF process, that some still seem to >> be confused over. > > I don't see that. IPR disclosures are about patents. The derivative > works language is about text. Alas, RFC 3979 seems pretty clear to me that "IPR" is intended to cover many things: o. "IPR" or "Intellectual Property Rights": means patent, copyright, utility model, invention registration, database and data rights that may Cover an Implementing Technology, whether such rights arise from a registration or renewal thereof, or an application therefore, in each case anywhere in the world. To me the use of the term "IPR Disclosure" in RFC 3979 refers to disclosures about any kind of "IPR" as defined in that document. Fixing the language in RFC 3979 to not confuse patents with copyrights etc would be a commendable effort. /Simon _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf