Brian E Carpenter <brian(_dot_)e(_dot_)carpenter(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> 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 mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf