Indeed, I was referring to patent licensing statements, and not copyrights (which are not usually addressed in the disclosure statements that patent owners submit). Regards, Chuck ------------- Chuck Powers, Motorola, Inc phone: 512-427-7261 mobile: 512-576-0008 > -----Original Message----- > From: Simon Josefsson [mailto:simon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2008 7:21 PM > To: Brian E Carpenter > Cc: John C Klensin; Powers Chuck-RXCP20; ietf@xxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: authorizing subsequent use of contributions > > Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > Yes, but it doesn't change the fact that our rules (both old and > > proposed new) only allow two very specific deviations from > the grant > > of license for derivative works. > > Agreed. > > I assumed Chuck talked about patent disclosures when he said > "IPR disclosure", and then he would be correct that they can > say anything and the language in them will likely change > given the new policies. I assume you interpreted him as > meaning copyright disclosure, and then he would be wrong as > you explained; there are only very limited copyright choices > when contributing anything to the IETF. Re-reading what he > wrote, I'm not sure what he intended. > > Another reason to avoid the term "IPR"... > > /Simon > _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf