Subject: Re: Possible RFC 3683 PR-action

From: [email-masked] (Noel Chiappa)
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 20:29:11 -0400 (EDT)

> From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[email-masked]>

    > If someone participates under a pseudonym with the objective of
    > inserting patented technology and anyone finds out they are in big
    > trouble. Much worse than any prior case.

We should write in our rules that anyone who contributes technology to any
IETF activity which they know to be either a) patented, b) the subject of a
filing, or c) the subject of a planned future filing, *without disclosing said
patent status* to the WG/I*, either:

- i) thereby grants an irrevocable, in perpetuity, no-fee license to use said
patent(s) to everyone in connection with any implementation of any IETF
specification resulting from said activity (if they are in any kind of
position to do so, e.g. are an employee of the patent holder),

or:

- ii) agrees to indemnify anyone in the universe for any costs they may incur
through use of said patent(s) in connection with any implementation of any
IETF specification resulting from said activity (if they aren't).

That oughta go a long way to fixing *that* problem.

(And if our IP rules, which I haven't looked at recently, already said that,
my apologies, and don't kick me too hard! :-)

	Noel
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: "Frank Ellermann" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2008 01:40:35 +0100

Noel Chiappa wrote:

> if our IP rules, which I haven't looked at recently, already
> said that, my apologies, and don't kick me too hard! :-)

*KICK* ;-)  Posted yesterday:

| The IESG has received a request from the Intellectual Property
| Rights WG (ipr) to consider the following document:

| - 'Rights Contributors provide to the IETF Trust '
|   <draft-ietf-ipr-3978-incoming-08.txt> as a BCP

| The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and
| solicits final comments on this action.  Please send substantive
| comments to the [email-masked] mailing lists by 2008-04-07.

---

From: Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2008 13:21:00 +0100

> *KICK* ;-)  Posted yesterday:

Hm, how does those rules meet any of the requirements Noel had?

/Simon

---

From: Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2008 13:23:26 +0100

> patent status* to the WG/I*, either:

Could we get away with making the NOTE WELL more visible?

For example, require that everyone (including any pseudonymous
contributors) who submit an internet-draft needs to ACK that they have
read and understood the NOTE WELL?

/Simon

---

From: "Frank Ellermann" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2008 15:51:33 +0100

> Hm, how does those rules meet any of the requirements Noel had?

Hardly, but now is a good time to discuss the proposed rules,
where they don't do what folks consider as required.  I think
there are enough "interesting" details in the "incoming" I-D
that adding missing rules about "anon contributors" would be
overkill.

 Frank