On 05/01/2016 11:36, Stephan Wenger wrote:
...
> IMO, the “benefits from” language extends the scope of what is currently codified in BCP79...
Exactly my point.
...
> If, after community review, the IETF at large decides that an extension of BCP79’s scope is what it wants, then why not put it in the Note Well?
Rather, I would say, why not put it in BCP 79? It isn't hard - basically it needs
a one paragraph RFC (not counting boilerplate) to do so.
"Section 6.6 of RFC 3979 (When is a Disclosure Required?) is replaced by the
following text:
IPR disclosures under Sections 6.1.1. and 6.1.2 are required with
respect to IPR that is owned directly or indirectly by or otherwise
benefits the individual or his/her employer or sponsor (if any) or
to IPR that such persons otherwise have the right to license or assert."
I don't like the idea of legislating on such a fundamental question other than
through a BCP.
Note that this is not a trivial extension. If companies A and B have a private
patent cartel (a.k.a. cross-licensing), contributors from company B would
be caught by this extension if aware of a relevant patent owned by company A.
That really isn't something we can slide in through the back door.
Brian