Hi Barry,
On 7/8/16 5:34 PM, Barry Leiba wrote:
The IESG is considering an IESG statement on IPR Declarations, and would
like to solicit comments from the community on the proposed text. The
proposed text is provided below.
The IESG will make a decision about this matter shortly. Please provide
comments, if any, to ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org or to the IESG at
iesg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
before July 31, 2016.
The statement below seems to amount to "The IESG has nothing to do
with IPR disclosures," and nothing more. I don't understand why the
IESG wants to put that out as an IESG Statement, rather than, say,
posting it prominently on the IPR disclosure pages (where people who
need to see it might actually see it), and making sure that it also
covers the IAB, and maybe the IAOC, ISOC, and the IETF Secretariat.
If I read correctly between the lines, and one must do that since the
IESG has not been clear as to why they wish to issue the statement, the
IESG is saying that they do not want the IETF to be used as a football
in a court case as being in some way dispositive about whether or not
IPR is valid. And that is all well and good because**very few of us are
actually lawyers. I cannot, however, evaluate whether or not such a
statement actually accomplishes that goal. I'm not a lawyer. I could
also imagine some WG participants falsely extrapolating from this draft
statement that they may not raise a discussion about IPR. I believe the
statement should be clearer as to its intent and on this point.
Eliot
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature