Adjust language for getting patent policy comittments from non-participants

[frivoal]

This makes sure that we seek commitments to the patent policy from the the people who are originating the substance of the change being offered, rather than from those who are doing the mechanical work of offering them.

Note: This aligns with current Team practices and existing tooling.

Addresses #903

---

Preview | Diff

[nigelmegitt]

Query about proposals originating from more than one party.

[nigelmegitt]

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.

[nigelmegitt]

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.

[frivoal]

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

[nigelmegitt]

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.

[frivoal]

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

[nigelmegitt]

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

[TallTed]

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.

[nigelmegitt]

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.

[TallTed]

it seems to me to be using more words to mean the same thing

Sometimes this is necessary to communicate with clarity.

I think my rephrase is the only one above that clearly communicates all the details, even if it does use some lawyerese. I think the original is hazy on some details, which is likely to (eventually) lead to troubles that will mandate rephrasing in the direction of if not completely to my suggested text.

(In other words, I'm not trying to change the meaning of anything earlier, but to make the intended meaning come across more clearly, especially to folks for whom English is a second or later language.)