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(_at_)josefsson(_dot_)org]
Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2008 7:21 PM
To: Brian E Carpenter
Cc: John C Klensin; Powers Chuck-RXCP20; ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: authorizing subsequent use of contributions
Brian E Carpenter <brian(_dot_)e(_dot_)carpenter(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> 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 mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf