On 27/01/2014 11:45, Ned Freed wrote:
>> --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.
Yes. I should have written "as a condition of contribution". Sorry.
Anyway - same conclusion, we should use the old wording until
the new wording has been corrected.
Brian
>
> 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
>