Skip to content
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.

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

feat: allow blanket IPR disclosures #7934

Merged
merged 14 commits into from
Sep 18, 2024
Merged

Conversation

jennifer-richards
Copy link
Member

@jennifer-richards jennifer-richards commented Sep 13, 2024

Fixes #7909

This adds a boolean is_blanket_disclosure field to the HolderIprDisclosure model and related forms. When set, only "Royalty Free" licensing (option "b" in section VI) is allowed. The UI for this looks like this screenshot:

image

Note

When "This is a blanket IPR disclosure" is selected, the form is adjusted as follows

  1. the fields in V(A) are made non-required (though can still be filled in if desired)
  2. the licensing option "b" in section VI is selected and other options are disabled
image

If the "This is a blanket IPR disclosure" checkbox is then de-selected, those changes are reverted. If a licensing option had been selected before the box was checked, it is restored to that previous value.

The text below the heading in Section IV is changed from

If an Internet-Draft or RFC includes multiple parts and it is not reasonably apparent which part of such Internet-Draft or RFC is alleged to be covered by the patent information disclosed in Section V(A) or V(B), please identify the sections of the Internet-Draft or RFC that are alleged to be so covered.

to

If an Internet-Draft or RFC includes multiple parts and it is not reasonably apparent which part of such Internet-Draft or RFC is alleged to be covered by the patent information disclosed in Section V, please identify the sections of the Internet-Draft or RFC that are alleged to be so covered.

This is a draft PR until we get confirmation that the implementation is satisfactory. We'll also need to update tests.

@jennifer-richards jennifer-richards marked this pull request as ready for review September 18, 2024 19:07
@jennifer-richards
Copy link
Member Author

For historical context's sake, we were asked to add a reference to section 5.4.3 of RFC 8179 beside the new checkbox. With that, Section V looks like:
screenshot

Copy link

codecov bot commented Sep 18, 2024

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 96.00000% with 2 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 88.84%. Comparing base (c7f6bde) to head (d7b19f0).
Report is 78 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines Patch % Lines
ietf/ipr/views.py 92.59% 2 Missing ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #7934      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   88.78%   88.84%   +0.05%     
==========================================
  Files         296      304       +8     
  Lines       41320    41525     +205     
==========================================
+ Hits        36687    36893     +206     
+ Misses       4633     4632       -1     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

@rjsparks rjsparks merged commit 32057f3 into ietf-tools:main Sep 18, 2024
9 of 10 checks passed
@github-actions github-actions bot locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators Sep 24, 2024
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Allow blanket disclosures in section V of the specific disclosure form
2 participants