Strike "actively". It's a loophole and adds no value.
I don't know how a "contribution" can be "controlled" by
a patent.
Using "related" as the broadest possible term that IMO
may just be supported by BCP79:
"If you believe that a patent controlled by your employer
or sponsor is related to your contribution, then you must
disclose that patent."
I'm quite sure that the term "believe" is appropriate. It's not
the Note Well that allows trucks go through, it's BCP79. However,
ignoring my own advice (stick to terminology used in BCP79) I may
settle for "aware of":
"If you are aware of a patent controlled by your employer
or sponsor that is related to your contribution, then you must
disclose that patent."
Stephan
On 6.22.2012 08:51 , "Peter Saint-Andre" <stpeter(_at_)stpeter(_dot_)im> wrote:
On 6/22/12 9:45 AM, Noel Chiappa wrote:
> From: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter(_at_)stpeter(_dot_)im>>
> And somehow we also lost the point about "you know" or "you
believe"
> along the way.
That was deliberate. To me, "believe" is a loophole big enough to drive
a
truck through.
You're right. I was just trying to incorporate consensus. ;-)
So:
By participating here, you agree to follow IETF processes.
If you actively contribute and you know that your contribution
is controlled by patents, you need to disclose that.
You understand that meetings might be recorded and broadcast.
Refer to <foo> for details.
/psa