Subject: A suggested additional item in IPR disclosure pages

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 12:10:37 +0200

Hi,
now that the web-form disclosure pages are operational, I'd like to solicit 
the thoughts of people on the WG mailing list on a possible addition.

In RFC 3668 section 6.4.3, the following language occurs:

>    However, the requirement for an IPR disclosure is
>    satisfied by a blanket statement of the IPR discloser's willingness
>    to license all of its potential IPR meeting the requirements of
>    Section 6.6 (and either Section 6.1.1 or 6.1.2) to implementers of an
>    IETF specification on a royalty-free basis as long as any other terms
>    and conditions are disclosed in the IPR disclosure statement.

The term "any other terms and conditions are disclosed" seems like a nice 
thing to know under any circumstance, both for generic and specific IPR 
disclosures. So the suggestion came up to add a checkbox to the template, 
with the following accompanying text:

> "The individual submitting this template represents and warrants that all
> other terms and conditions that must be satisfied for implementers of an
> IETF specification to obtain a license on a royalty-free basis have been
> disclosed in this IPR disclosure statement

This should go into the generic template, since 3668 explicitly says that 
the IETF treats disclosures for which this is true different from 
disclosures for which it is not. But I also think it would be good to put 
it into the specific template - to allow people to get around the FUD 
generated by someone saying "but we don't know what OTHER terms might be 
imposed upon us when we ask for a license" in the case where the IPR holder 
REALLY wants things to be simple.

Makes sense?

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

---

From: [email-masked] (scott bradner)
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 07:16:19 -0400 (EDT)

> disclosed in this IPR disclosure statement

I'm not sure that this needs to be RF specific - it would (I think) be
more useful if the words "on a royalty-free basis" were removed

that way it would cover both the RFC and the non-RFC cases

Scott

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 14:09:10 +0200

> that way it would cover both the RFC and the non-RFC cases

you mean the RF and the non-RF cases?

the important part in the generic disclosure is that RF is required to 
avoid the need for specific disclosures according to RFC 3668.

but saying that the statement is RF is another field in the form, so we can 
get all that information without having it on this checkbox.

---

From: [email-masked] (scott bradner)
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 08:12:26 -0400 (EDT)

> you mean the RF and the non-RF cases?

(too early) - yes

> avoid the need for specific disclosures according to RFC 3668.

sorry - I did not see that you were only refering to generic disclosures
if so then your suggestion is fine - but what about the case where 
the RFC declaration is not a generic one (i.e. one for a specific
ID only)

> get all that information without having it on this checkbox.

sorry - I did not parse the above bit

Scott