Hi SM,
There has been some discussion on this list about
draft-farrresnickel-ipr-sanctions-00. Thanks for the input.
The conversation seems to be partitioned into:
- discussion of sanctions and how to apply them
- discussion of measures that can be taken to
help people to adhere to BCP79
The following messages are about the "help people":
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg13082.html
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/marf/current/msg02081.html
Yes. I've been watching those threads, and I think that some other WGs are
thinking of following similar procedures.
Furthermore, there is some debate about who should/can be responsible for
applying sanctions.
[snip]
In Appendix A:
"- Does the large number of patents that the individual has authored
provide any level of excuse for failing to notice that one of
their patents covered the IETF work?"
That should be "the individual has invented".
Yes.
I suggest removing the above as prolific inventors should pay more
attention to BCP 79.
I'm inclined to agree with you.
Others feel that there may be some mitigation in this case.
By listing the point, we are giving the WG chairs the opportunity to consider
it. They may deduce that it provides an excuse, no excuse, or exacerbates the
case.
Section 6.1.2 of BCP 79 is about an IETF Participant's IPR in
Contributions by others. Should sanctions be considered if the
individual participates and does not disclose?
Yes. That is certainly my intention in this document. All violations of BCP 79
are cause to consider sanctions. The severity of the case may be judged by many
factors, and I suppose that the level of "participation" may be one of these
factors. I am hoping that Section 2.1 makes the first point clear, and Appendix
A the second point.
Cheers,
Adrian
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf