On 07/02/2014 08:12, Richard Barnes wrote:
The IESG would like to put forward a revision to the proposed new Note
Well, after some discussion both on the IETF list [1] and within the IESG.
The revised text can be found on the IESG wiki:
<http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/iesg/trac/wiki/DraftNoteWellSummary>
The only change is the following:
OLD: "..., you must disclose that fact"
NEW: "..., you must disclose that fact, *or not participate in the
discussion*"
This is intended to reflect that BCP 79's requirements for disclosure apply
to "Any individual participating in an IETF discussion", as opposed to all
IETF participants.
"If you are aware that any contribution (something written, said, or discussed
in any IETF context) is covered by patents or
patent applications, you must disclose that fact, or not participate in the
discussion."
That is still wrong, because it doesn't distinguish the case of 3rd party
disclosures, which are optional, from 1st party disclosures, which are
mandatory. This would be more accurate, by excluding the 3rd party case:
"If you are aware that any contribution (something written, said, or discussed
in any IETF context) is covered by patents or
patent applications by you or your employer or sponsor, you must disclose that
fact, or not participate in the discussion."
If you want to include the third party case, you'd need an extra sentence.
I still *much* prefer the old version. Summarising complex legal rules
is a dangerous game and I'm certain that a clever litigator could
exploit subtle differences between the summary and the full text.
Brian