> --On Saturday, January 25, 2014 16:41 +1300 Brian E Carpenter > <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > It's quite obvious from reading this thread that the IAOC needs > > to revert to the previous Note Well text right now, until the > > wording issue is resolved. > > > > It is apparent to me though that the BCP *requires* disclosure > > as a condition of participation, regardless of employment > > agreements, and always has done. That's why there has always > > been tolerance extended to allow corporate IPR departments to > > have time to prepare and make disclosures at lawyerly speed. > > Nothing new here except the more brutal wording. Nonsense. The BCP is careful to make it clear that you're obliged to dislose your IPR when you're contributing. The Note Well grossly misprepresents the BCP by talking about any contribution and any IPR without qualification. This is incorrect in two ways: It conflates contributions in general with someone acting in the role of a contributor, and it fails to distingish between "your" IPR and third party IPR. The wording is not brutal, or as others have claimed, overly broad. It's sloppy and wrong. And I'm far more worried about 3rd party IPR here. BCP 79 section 6.1.3 makes disclosure of that a MAY. (The exact word used is "encouraged".) This languages makes it a MUST. Would we tolerate a MUST where a MAY is needed in any other context, even with an "exceptions may apply" disclaimer attached? I think not. > Agreed. Noting that the likely effect of "regardless of > employment agreements" if there really is a conflict in a > particular company-participant relations is "don't participate > in that" under the BCP and "don't attend" if the wording is more > brutal, we should have a lot of incentive to clean the language > up... and go back to the tested language until a cleaned-up > version is ready. Mandating disclosure of 3rd party IPR drags in a whole lot more than employment contracts. Ned