Re: draft-ietf-ipr-trademarks-00.txt

[Simon Josefsson <jas at extundo.com>]

Bill Sommerfeld <sommerfeld at sun.com> writes:

> On Fri, 2005-02-04 at 09:25, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>> Rather than updating RFC 3667 to be specific on how trademarks should
>> be acknowledged, I think it would be better to relax the requirement
>> to acknowledge all trademarks.
>
> But that doesn't help the case where a person making a trademark claim is one of 
> the contributors to the document and claims to be required by trademark law to
> acknowledge the mark.

One of the properties of a consensus process is that all wishes cannot
be accommodated all of the time.

If a WG reached consensus on acknowledging a trademark, which I
thought is what you said earlier for this example, then whether a
contributor claim something does not seem relevant to what goes into
document.  It is relevant to the WG discussions that might lead to a
consensus, but if the WG doesn't agree with the claim, I don't see how
the WG would have any problem removing the offending text.

Thanks,
Simon

_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wg at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg