Subject: Re: The Law... Definition of Derivative Claims...

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2006 15:29:17 +0000

Harald - in your zeal to bodyslam me you missed the point - the IETF's RFC and ID documents ARE descriptions of those technologies and while the technologies themselves are not protected by the Copyright per se, the descriptions of them are, and that is what we are talking about here. What is needed in the process of republishing those documents per the rights transferred.

-----

Harald  why not try this - take a deep breath and realize that I am in the middle of this IP mess and its going to stay that way. So rather than fight me and make me adversarial to you folks - why not ask me to demonstrate the key issues of my complaints and figure whether the risks of not addressing them are more than the cost of your distaste for me personally.\

By the way - good morning...

Todd

 -------------- Original message ----------------------
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
> 
> 
> --On tirsdag, januar 17, 2006 14:25:06 -0800 todd glassey 
> <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> > Lets look at some law links Harald ...
> >
> > this one is for the definition of Copyright and its Claims - American Bar
> > Association - notice commentary on derivative copyrights.
> > http://www.abanet.org/intelprop/comm106/106copy.html Read through the
> > Derivative Licenses setion if you would.
> 
> It does not seem to suport your argument about the second implementation:
> 
> WHAT IS NOT PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT
> 
> Ideas, procedures, methods, systems, processes, concepts, principles, 
> discoveries, or devices, as distinguished from a description, explanation, 
> or illustration.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2006 12:07:58 -0500

Todd,
     An implementation of a protocol does not require any copying rights 
relative to the description of that protocol.
     You seem to be asserting that copyright transfer is required for an 
implementation (software or hardware) of a protocol.
     You seem to be repeating this assertion.
     The C (or other language) implementation does not use the words of the 
RFC.  Copyright is only required if you make use of the words of the source 
material.  Using the ideas of the source material does not require the 
right to copy the source material.
     There is an issue with regard to the use of MIBs and such like.  Which 
we have always intended to permit.  We may, as per some of Simon's remarks, 
have mangled that in the last revision.  The working group has already 
agreed to fix that.
     But that has absolutely nothing to do with the copyright in the text 
of the document and the question of whether multiple entities (or even one 
entity distinct from the copyright holders) can implement that protocol.

    If you wish to support your contention that a software implementation 
of a protocol needs the copyright permission to the description of the 
protocol (apparently, according to your view, because the protocol 
implementation is a derivative work of a protocol description), please 
provide very specific citation so that I do not waste the time of my legal 
expert searching for your assertion.

     Yours,
     Joel M. Halpern

At 10:29 AM 1/18/2006, [email-masked] wrote:
>Harald - in your zeal to bodyslam me you missed the point - the IETF's RFC 
>and ID documents ARE descriptions of those technologies and while the 
>technologies themselves are not protected by the Copyright per se, the 
>descriptions of them are, and that is what we are talking about here. What 
>is needed in the process of republishing those documents per the rights 
>transferred.
>
>-----
>
>Harald  why not try this - take a deep breath and realize that I am in the 
>middle of this IP mess and its going to stay that way. So rather than 
>fight me and make me adversarial to you folks - why not ask me to 
>demonstrate the key issues of my complaints and figure whether the risks 
>of not addressing them are more than the cost of your distaste for me 
>personally.\
>