Subject: Re: Legal review results 1: Intellectual property (fwd)

From: Dean Anderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 15:51:43 -0500 (EST)

Did you get a look at this below? It seems to have been lost in the noise, 
so I'll repost.

The notion of giving source code but retaining patent rights is not
entirely academic.  Novell asserted (for a while anyway) that it never
transfered patents covering Unix to SCO.  Some people/companies are
certainly interested in selling/transferring copyright and patent rights
separately, as well as trademarks (e.g. the Unix trademark now owned by
The Open Group)

The IETF needs to get everything necessary to use the software and/or
data, and everything necessary to give the software/data to someone else
to use.

		--Dean

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 00:09:57 -0500 (EST)
From: Dean Anderson <[email-masked]>
To: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Legal review results 1: Intellectual property

One problem:

One can have full control over the software source code copyright but not
over the patents that cover use of the software.  If you don't have a 
patent license, you can't use patented software.  

The text should be modified to include specifications that one is given
control over the applicable copyrights, patents, and trademarks as
necessary for use by the general public.  As someone pointed out, open
source software should meet the definition. Open patents should also meet
this definition.

Aside: This is an example of why you should avoid the term "intellectual
property". There is really no such thing as "intellectual property".  
Instead there are patents, copyrights, and trademarks. Each of these are
unique.  Thinking of a single concept of "intellectual property" leads one
to miss the differences between them.  "patents, copyrights, trademarks"  
is just a few more letters to type, and leads to much greater clarity.
"intellectual property" is a term, like "partial-birth abortion" that was
made up by one side to advance its views. Neither are technical terms.  
Both are misleading.

		--Dean

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:

> In this and a few later messages, I'm relaying comments from Jorge 
> Contreras, the IETF's pro bono legal counsel.
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> 1.  Intellectual Property.  I think I understand the reason for including 
> an explicit requirement that IP created in support of IETF activities be 
> usable by IETF on a perpetual basis.  The way this concept is expressed, 
> however, should probably be adjusted slightly to reflect the way IP rights 
> are actually conveyed and licensed.
> 
> Old Text (Sec. 3.1, paragraphs 5-6)
> 
> The IAD is responsible for ensuring that all contracts give IASA and
>    the IETF the perpetual right to use, display, distribute, reproduce,
>    modify and create derivatives of all data created in support of IETF
>    activities.  This is necessary to make sure the IETF has access to
>    the data it needs at all times, and to ensure that the IASA can
>    change contractors as needed without disrupting IETF work.
> 
>    Whenever reasonable, if software is developed under an IASA contract
>    it should should remain usable by the IETF beyond the terms of the
>    contract.  Some ways of achieving this are by IASA ownership or an
>    open source license; an open source license is preferable.  The IAD
>    shall decide how best to serve the IETF's interests when making such
>    contracts.
> 
> Suggested new text (Sec. 3.1, paragraphs 5-6)
> 
> (A)  If a contract entered into by ISOC on behalf of IASA and/or the IETF
> (an "IASA Contract") provides for the creation, development,
>  modification or storage of any data (including, without limitation, any
> data relating to IETF membership, documents, archives, mailing lists,
> correspondence, financial records, personnel records and the like)
> ("Data"), then the IAD shall ensure that such contract grants to ISOC
> the perpetual, irrevocable right, on behalf of IASA and IETF, to use, 
> display, distribute, reproduce, modify and create derivatives of such Data.
> ISOC will permit IASA and its designee(s) to have sole control and
> custodianship of such Data, and ISOC will not utilize or access such
> Data in connection with any ISOC function other than IETF without
> the written consent of the IAD.
> 
> (B)  If an IASA Contract provides for the creation, development or
>  modification of any software (including, without limitation, any
> search tools, indexing tools and the like) ("Developed Software")
> then the IAD shall, whenever reasonable and practical, ensure
> that such contract either (a) grants ownership of such Developed
> Software to ISOC, or (b) grants ISOC a perpetual, irrevocable
> right, on behalf of IASA and IETF, to use, display, distribute,
> reproduce, modify and create derivatives of such Software
> (including, without limitation, pursuant to an open source style
> license).  It is preferred that Developed Software be provided and
> licensed for IASA and IETF use in source code form.
> ISOC will permit IASA and its designee(s) to have sole control and
> custodianship of such Developed Software, and ISOC
> will not utilize or access such Developed Software in
> connection with any ISOC function other than IETF without
> the written consent of the IAD.  The foregoing rights are not required
> in the case of off-the-shelf or other commercially-available software
>  that is not developed at the expense of ISOC.
> 
> (C)  If an IASA Contract relates to the licensing of third party software,
> the IAD shall ensure that such license expressly permits use of such
> software for and on behalf of IASA and/or IETF, as applicable, and
> that such license is transferable in accordance with the provisions of
> Section 7 (Removability).
> 
> In addition, the principle stated in 2.2(7) should be expanded to
> include software, as well as data.
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> My biggest problem with this is size..........
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> 
> 

-- 
Av8 Internet   Prepared to pay a premium for better service?
www.av8.net         faster, more reliable, better service
617 344 9000   

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 22:56:59 +0100

You gave an excellent argument why one should use "intellectual property" 
and not the individual categories.

You forgot service marks, for one thing.

--On onsdag, januar 26, 2005 15:51:43 -0500 Dean Anderson <[email-masked]> 
wrote:

>
> Did you get a look at this below? It seems to have been lost in the
> noise,  so I'll repost.
>
>> 1.  Intellectual Property.  I think I understand the reason for
>> including  an explicit requirement that IP created in support of IETF
>> activities be  usable by IETF on a perpetual basis.  The way this
>> concept is expressed,  however, should probably be adjusted slightly to
>> reflect the way IP rights  are actually conveyed and licensed.
>>
>> display, distribute, reproduce, modify and create derivatives of such
>> Data. ISOC will permit IASA and its designee(s) to have sole control and
>> Data in connection with any ISOC function other than IETF without the
>> written consent of the IAD.
>>
>> (C)  If an IASA Contract relates to the licensing of third party
>> software, the IAD shall ensure that such license expressly permits use
>> of such software for and on behalf of IASA and/or IETF, as applicable,
>> and that such license is transferable in accordance with the provisions
>> of Section 7 (Removability).
>>