Subject: RE: comment on template

From: "Valerie See" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2003 09:48:07 -0700

Scott Bradner wrote on Wed, 13 Aug 2003:
> I just noticed this at the start of the template:
>    This document is an IETF Patent Disclosure and Licensing
>    Declaration Template and is submitted to inform the IETF of a)
>    patent information regarding the IETF document or contribution
>    listed in Section IV, and b) a Patent Holder's intention with
>    respect to the licensing of its necessary patent claims upon
>    approval by the IESG for publication as an RFC of the relevant
> IETF specification. 
> 
> I think that the text about "approval by the IESG" should come out of
> here I know its in -technology and maybe it should come out of there
> but it is referring to the IETF ExDir doing someting in -technology -
> having the text here implies that this is the way that all licenses
> would be done and I'm not sure its a good idea to make that
> assumption or to limit the options -
> [snip]

Scott - We're submitting a new draft of the template doc that addresses
this concern. For what it's worth, in my personal opinion, that 
language should stay in tech-rights, as I think the "upon approval" text

is appropriate there. The licensor can of course license any time and 
to whoever it wants to, but from a sheer scalability and practicality
standpoint I don't think it's a reasonable expectation
to think that the IESG would make a query about licensing commitment
for every I-D (for instance) that passes into and out of the IETF. 
But we did pull this out of the template as your concern about 
simplicity for those who did want to license more broadly seemed
something that we could improve upon in our text with some mods. 
There are also some other minor edits to make the rest of the template 
and the surrounding explanations clearer in this light as well.

Thanks,

-- Val

_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

---

From: Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2003 13:45:09 -0400 (EDT)

> I don't think it's a reasonable expectation

nor is it supposed to - the only time that a query is supposed to go out
is if no IPR disclosure had been received - at least that is the 
waythings have always run - if that is not clear in -technology I
should fix that

Scott