On 05/01/2016 11:36, Stephan Wenger wrote:
...
IMO, the “benefits from” language extends the scope of what is currently
codified in BCP79...
Exactly my point.
...
If, after community review, the IETF at large decides that an extension of
BCP79’s scope is what it wants, then why not put it in the Note Well?
Rather, I would say, why not put it in BCP 79? It isn't hard - basically it
needs
a one paragraph RFC (not counting boilerplate) to do so.
"Section 6.6 of RFC 3979 (When is a Disclosure Required?) is replaced by the
following text:
IPR disclosures under Sections 6.1.1. and 6.1.2 are required with
respect to IPR that is owned directly or indirectly by or otherwise
benefits the individual or his/her employer or sponsor (if any) or
to IPR that such persons otherwise have the right to license or assert."
I don't like the idea of legislating on such a fundamental question other than
through a BCP.
Note that this is not a trivial extension. If companies A and B have a private
patent cartel (a.k.a. cross-licensing), contributors from company B would
be caught by this extension if aware of a relevant patent owned by company A.
That really isn't something we can slide in through the back door.
Brian