Subject: -technology - Contributor

From: Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2003 00:16:07 -0400 (EDT)

thomas wonders:
> >    (c) in order for the working group and the rest of the IETF to have
> >       the information needed to make an informed decision about the use
> >       of a particular technology, all those contributing to the working
> >       group's discussions must disclose the existence of any IPR the
> >       Contributor believes Covers or may ultimately Cover the technology
> >       under discussion.  This applies to both contributors and other
> >       participants, and applies whether they contribute in person, via
> >       email or by other means.  The requirement applies to all IPR of
> >       the Contributor, the Contributor's employer, sponsor, or others
> >       represented by the Contributors, that is reasonably and personally
> >       known to the person submitting the disclosure.  No patent search
> >       is required.
> 
> above, "Contributor" is used, but that term includes "RFC
> Contributions", which I believe is not appropriate here. Or is it?

we do not have a seperate definition for IETF Contributor - is this 
important enough an potential confusion that we should add one?

> Also, what is a "other participant", since in the note well,
> participants basically make contributions. So aren't they all just
> contributors?  What is the definition of a participant? If participant
> is different than contributor, it might be good to explain why. Or
> just us the term "Contributor" exclusively.

I do not see what is wrong with just letting the English language work
here - I think it would add considerable confusion to try to say change
"participant" to "contributor" when the person in question might 
just say "the idea is nutz" - I doubt that the person would consider
themselves a "contributor" in the sense of contributing an idea

Scott
,.

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

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2003 07:32:45 -0700

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Scott Bradner" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2003 9:16 PM
Subject: -technology - Contributor

> important enough an potential confusion that we should add one?

Yes