Subject: RE: FYI - Legal Definition of a Derivative Work - per Copyright

From: "Contreras, Jorge" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 14:07:03 -0500

Generally, implementing a standard in hardware 
would not infringe the copyright in the standard
unless the standard includes code (like MIB modules)
that is required to for implementation.  The
current IPR policy addresses extraction of such 
code.  There is an ongoing debate regarding the
modification of such code.

Patents, of course, can be infringed by implementations,
but IETF does not get any patent licenses or
rights from contributors.

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf
Of Harald Tveit Alvestrand
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 1:54 PM
To: todd glassey; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: FYI - Legal Definition of a Derivative Work - per Copyright

--On tirsdag, januar 17, 2006 09:41:23 -0800 todd glassey 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> Steve asked for some legal precedent... here is some background reading to
> do

Todd,

Steve asked for a legal precedent for your claim that a second 
implementation of a protocol constitutes a derivative work - in your words: 
"the IETF's
Standards Process MANDATES a second Interoperable Protocol be built by one
of the parties involved in the Initiative... and without the Derviative
Rights no one can legally claim that they have the right to implement that
instance of that protocol".

Nothing you have produced so far gives any indication that there's 
competent legal advice that this is the case.

Please - put up or shut up.

                     Harald

>
> The Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 101 defines a derivative work as follows:
>
> ...a work based upon one or more preexisting works such as a translation,
> musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture
> version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation or
> any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A
> work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or
> other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of
> authorship is a "derivative work.
>
> Also pay attention to something called FIRST SALE DOCTERINE. Its a
> relevent factor as well.

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

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

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 11:09:29 -0800

Jorge it does get Patent Disclosure though so it is involved in the patent
rights of those submitting works through it or otherwise.

t.
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Contreras, Jorge" <[email-masked]>
To: "Harald Tveit Alvestrand" <[email-masked]>; "todd glassey"
<[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 11:07 AM
Subject: RE: FYI - Legal Definition of a Derivative Work - per Copyright

-----Original Message-----

Todd,

                     Harald

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 13:21:48 -0800

But Jorge, what does this really mean? For instance, A Cisco Router is a PC
with several interfaces in it and IOS. A Foudantion Network's switch has a
similar harware switching engine to implement the 4-byte switching
header-filter but it is still a software system whether that system runs in
a ROM based appliance model or otherwise.

My point is that there is very little difference beween HW and SW systems
these days and almost all HW systems hae some form of SW within them. Also
while we are arguing on whether the term Derivative applies to text or
republishing rights, the world has moved past us and now everywhere outside
the IETF, this is common. That being said, the IETF must keep its models
defensible and that means current. So I disagree Counsel, and think that the
common definition of Derivative Works is appropriate to all excerpted and
otherwise rights.

Still, though I want to bring up that I really believe that there is NO
reason to allow anyone else to turn the IETF into a business including the
members of this Mailing List. and that said, the IETF's understanding of the
value of the donations to it creates some requirement of an exchange of
comparable worth - or since the IETF is claiming to be Tax Exempt, a
write-down against the ongoing value of any contribution... Lets see how
that one spins.

Todd

-----Original Message-----

Todd,

                     Harald