Skip to content

Adjust language for getting patent policy comittments from non-participants #1129

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Open
frivoal wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Adjust language for getting patent policy comittments from non-participants #1129

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
4 changes: 2 additions & 2 deletions index.bs
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -3427,9 +3427,9 @@ Maintenance Without a Group</h4>
<h4 id="contributor-license">
License Grants from Non-Participants</h4>

When a party who is not already obligated under the Patent Policy
offers a change in class 3 or 4
When a proposal for a change in class 3 or 4
(as described in [[#correction-classes]]) to a technical report under this process
Copy link
Contributor

@nigelmegitt nigelmegitt Dec 10, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

With this change, I don't think the words "under this process" add anything, so I'd suggest deleting them as part of this PR.

originates from or contains substantive contributions by a party not already obligated under the patent Policy,
Copy link
Contributor

@nigelmegitt nigelmegitt Dec 10, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This gives rise to a potential edge case that some change originates from more than one party not already obligated under the patent Policy.

If I'm reading it correctly, under this scenario, the Team can satisfy this changed Process requirement by getting a commitment from only one of them, rather than all of them.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

@frivoal frivoal Dec 10, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

That's not the way I read it. Do you have a rephrasing suggestion to make it clearer?

the [=Team=] <em class=rfc2119>must</em> request
a recorded royalty-free patent commitment;
for a change in class 4, the Team <em class=rfc2119>must</em> secure such commitment.
Comment on lines +3432 to 3435
Copy link
Contributor

@nigelmegitt nigelmegitt Dec 11, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Proposal as requested:

Suggested change
originates from or contains substantive contributions by a party not already obligated under the patent Policy,
the [=Team=] <em class=rfc2119>must</em> request
a recorded royalty-free patent commitment;
for a change in class 4, the Team <em class=rfc2119>must</em> secure such commitment.
originates from or contains substantive contributions by any parties not already obligated under the patent Policy,
the [=Team=] <em class=rfc2119>must</em> request
a recorded royalty-free patent commitment
from all of those parties;
for a change in class 4, the Team <em class=rfc2119>must</em> secure such commitment.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

@frivoal frivoal Dec 17, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I don't object to this language, but it seems to me to be using more words to mean the same thing.

Copy link
Contributor

@nigelmegitt nigelmegitt Dec 17, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I made the proposal because I don't think it does mean the same thing!

Copy link
Member

@TallTed TallTed Dec 17, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think this gets closer, though I do wonder why classes 1, 2, & 3 only require a request, while class 4 requires that the request be satisfied.

Suggested change
originates from or contains substantive contributions by a party not already obligated under the patent Policy,
the [=Team=] <em class=rfc2119>must</em> request
a recorded royalty-free patent commitment;
for a change in class 4, the Team <em class=rfc2119>must</em> secure such commitment.
originates from or contains substantive contributions by
any parties not already obligated under the patent Policy,
the [=Team=] <em class=rfc2119>must</em> request
a recorded royalty-free patent commitment
from each of those parties;
for a change in class 4,
the Team <em class=rfc2119>must</em> secure such commitments
from each and every such party.

Copy link
Contributor

@nigelmegitt nigelmegitt Dec 17, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Now I'm in the position of thinking that change doesn't modify the meaning of my proposal! Possibly commitment on the last line should be commitments.

I did actually consider this and decided that such commitment in the last line can only be interpreted as referring to all of the requested commitments. If it doesn't read that way to you @TallTed , how would you feel about just changing the "must secure such commitment" to "must secure such commitments" in the last line?

I'm sensitive that, in increasing precision, we may be reducing readability and heading towards language that feels more "legalistic" than it needs to.

Copy link
Contributor

@nigelmegitt nigelmegitt Jan 14, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I have no opinion about emphasising secure.

Given the comments, I would suggest going with the proposal at #1129 (comment) with secure emphasised.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

@frivoal frivoal Jan 14, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This is what this gives:

Suggested change
originates from or contains substantive contributions by a party not already obligated under the patent Policy,
the [=Team=] <em class=rfc2119>must</em> request
a recorded royalty-free patent commitment;
for a change in class 4, the Team <em class=rfc2119>must</em> secure such commitment.
originates from or contains substantive contributions by any parties not already obligated under the patent Policy,
the [=Team=] <em class=rfc2119>must</em> request
a recorded royalty-free patent commitment
from all of those parties;
for a change in class 4, the Team <em class=rfc2119>must</em> <em>secure</em> such commitment.

I'm ok with that. @TallTed, fine by you too?

Copy link
Member

@chrisn chrisn Jan 14, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It's not clear what adding emphasis achieves here, so suggest leaving as it was.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

@frivoal frivoal Jan 15, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I would tend to agree with @chrisn.

Copy link
Member

@TallTed TallTed Jan 16, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

In my opinion the <em> on secure makes more clear the required resolution of the requests that were issued based on the previous phrase.

I won't lie down in the road on it, but I'll ask that folks keep this sequence in mind for potential future revision if such commitments are not being treated as required (until after some time without securing them).

Expand Down