Subject: Re: Software as Goods... - UCC Article 9, def #44

From: Todd Glassey <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 18:40:19 -0700 (GMT-07:00)

Uh no Harald - the MIBS, the psuedocode models and the code-snippets are all considered 'goods' under Article 9's #44 definition,  as is metalanguage as well, and the license to use them for "any and all uses" is pretty clearly not limited to reprinting rights, but rather are rights granted to the world which allow "any and all to use those IP's for development of anything, without any compensation to the IP submitter"... which is OK if the intent is to give the IP away by submitting it to the IETF. How many of the Sponsors actually have bought into that as what they are sending people to the IETF for BTW? I bet the number is near zero with the exception

But hey, I could be wrong, except this is so important an issue, if I am wrong the IETF should formally document that by having its counsel represent that the IETF's IP's and processes as an American Corporate Entity is not controlled by US Law, but I am betting money that Jorge wont...

Your problem is simple. I demonstrated my point about the 'code' modules and their licensing issues as 'goods', all you have done is bleated out responses that represent this is wrong but you have not justified or supported that whatsoever, so rather than responding more in kind I simply challange you to refute this formally. 

Otherwise, the WG is on notice that any and all processes it implements must meet Operational Requirements for its processes set by US Law at the very least. 

If you are not willing to do that you put the IETF at risk...

TSG/

-----Original Message-----
>From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
>Sent: May 17, 2007 11:46 AM
>To: todd glassey <[email-masked]>
>Cc: [email-masked]
>Subject: Re: Software as Goods... - UCC Article 9, def #44
>
>
>
>--On 17. mai 2007 09:41 -0700 todd glassey <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
>> Harald -
>>
>>>
>>> I can't for the life of me figure out what kind of "good" you think
>>> RFCs,  or programs that form parts of RFCs, are associated with.
>>>
>>>                 Harald
>>
>> The "Goods" are devices and appliances that use the IP internal to the
>> RFC's.  As such the IP per UCC's Article 9's Definition #44 is right on
>> the money, right Jorge?
>
>So you're talking about goods that are never conveyed to the IETF, and that 
>the IETF never conveys to anyone. Thanks for clarifying that this 
>interesting legal theory is irrelevant to the IETF, and therefore 
>irrelevant to this working group.
>
>                 Harald
>

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

---

From: Don Armstrong <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 19:39:47 -0700

On Thu, 17 May 2007, Todd Glassey wrote:
> Your problem is simple. I demonstrated my point about the 'code'
> modules and their licensing issues as 'goods', all you have done is
> bleated out responses that represent this is wrong but you have not
> justified or supported that whatsoever, so rather than responding
> more in kind I simply challange you to refute this formally.

Please read about UCITA and the necessity of states to amend the UCC
to specifically define software as a good when sold; Virginia is a
UCITA state, so the UCC specifically does not apply to software.
Additionally, the precise nature of licenses and software under them
is confounded by the differing opinions of district courts, which (to
my knowledge) has yet to be unified.

That said, none of what UCC, UCITA, your state's, virginia's or the
transnational republic laws state matters at all in the context of
outbound rights, where we are assuming that the to-be-written inbound
rights document will handle any necessary legal complications required
to license IETF appropriately. It is appropriate to bring up this when
the licensing argreement has been written if it is deficient, not now.

Don Armstrong

-- 
Taxes are not levied for the benefit of the taxed.
 -- Robert Heinlein _Time Enough For Love_ p250

http://www.donarmstrong.com              http://rzlab.ucr.edu

---

From: Graham Murray <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 May 2007 10:04:48 +0100

Todd Glassey <[email-masked]> writes:

> But hey, I could be wrong, except this is so important an issue, if I
> am wrong the IETF should formally document that by having its counsel
> represent that the IETF's IP's and processes as an American Corporate
> Entity is not controlled by US Law, but I am betting money that Jorge
> wont...

Therein lies what is probably the "root" of the problem - that IETF is
an American Corporate Entity. The Internet and IETF are international in
scope, and IETF has members and contributors from many countries. So is
it right that the Internet standards authority's processes are subject
the rules of a single (albeit very large) jurisdiction? What is the
status (in terms of incorporation, IP rights of contributors,
jurisdiction of processes etc) of other international technical
standards bodies such as ISO, ITU, CENELEC, ECMA, ETSI etc., are they
bound by the rules of a single state?

---

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 May 2007 15:42:18 +0200

> bound by the rules of a single state?
ITU is an UN organization, and thereby above the law of *any* country.

I believe all the other ones have a corporate nexus that is inside a 
single state; ISO's secretariat is in Geneva, and therefore subject to 
Swiss law, but it's a membership organization where the members are 
national standards institutes.

I don't think this is a big problem; it's just part of what we have to 
do in order to work in the real world. And RFCs are still not "goods" by 
any stretch of *my* imagination.

Harald

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 May 2007 08:01:05 -0700

Harald - until Jorge is willing to publicly state that RFC's are not goods 
and contain no goods, my commentary stands...

As such I again assert that I believe that RFC's are indeed 'goods' or at 
least controlled in the US by 'goods' laws if they contain 'goods'... that 
said, obviously not all RFC's would qualify, but any that contained code 
samples would be classifiable as such whether the code was delivered as a 
plain-text (precompiled) or binary additions one would think.

Todd

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Harald Alvestrand" <[email-masked]>
To: "Graham Murray" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, May 18, 2007 6:42 AM
Subject: Form of incorporation of organizations (Re: Software as Goods... - 
UCC Article 9, def #44)

> I don't think this is a big problem; it's just part of what we have to do 
> in order to work in the real world. And RFCs are still not "goods" by any 
> stretch of *my* imagination.
>
> Harald
>
>
>
>

---

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 May 2007 17:27:26 +0200

On Fri, May 18, 2007 at 10:04:48AM +0100,
 Graham Murray <[email-masked]> wrote 
 a message of 22 lines which said:

> Therein lies what is probably the "root" of the problem - that IETF
> is an American Corporate Entity. The Internet and IETF are
> international in scope, and IETF has members and contributors from
> many countries. So is it right that the Internet standards
> authority's processes are subject the rules of a single (albeit very
> large) jurisdiction?

I'm afraid yes, in practice. For instance, read:

http://www.ietf.org/IESG/content/ions/ion-subpoena.html

which says:

This procedure deals with subpoenas served in cases brought in US
courts, because that is the only type the IETF so far has to deal
with. If the IETF ever has to deal with similar issues in other
jurisdictions, this document will have to be updated.

> What is the status (in terms of incorporation, IP rights of
> contributors, jurisdiction of processes etc) of other international
> technical standards bodies such as ISO, ITU, CENELEC, ECMA, ETSI
> etc., are they bound by the rules of a single state?

No for the ITU, which is a "treaty organization", part of the UN
system. Dunno for the others.

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 18 May 2007 11:35:01 -0400

Todd,

> Harald - until Jorge is willing to publicly state that RFC's
> are not goods  and contain no goods, my commentary stands...

I'm not Jorge, but I'll debunk this whole topic for you.

Article 9 of the UCC does not apply to anything IETF does in
publishing Internet-Drafts or RFCs, because none of those
publishing activities is within Article 9's scope.

Here's the scope of Article 9, directly from the link in your message
(http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/9/article9.htm):

	9-109. SCOPE.

	(a) [General scope of article.]

	Except as otherwise provided in subsections (c) and (d), this
	article applies to:

	(1) a transaction, regardless of its form, that creates a
security
		interest in personal property or fixtures by contract;

	(2) an agricultural lien;

	(3) a sale of accounts, chattel paper, payment intangibles, or
promissory notes;

	(4) a consignment;	

	(5) a security interest arising under Section 2-401, 2-505,
2-711(3),
		 2A-508(5), as provided in Section 9-110; and

	(6) a security interest arising under Section 4-210 or 5-118.

	(b) [Security interest in secured obligation.]

	The application of this article to a security interest in a
secured
	obligation is not affected by the fact that the obligation is
itself
	secured by a transaction or interest to which this article does
not apply.

Subsections (c) and (d) further narrow the scope of article 9.

Items (2), (3) and (4) in the 9-109(a) list do not apply to the IETF
activities we are discussing.  The remaining items all involve a
"security interest".

A "security interest" is an interest in property that is used to
secure (assure) payment (e.g., of a debt) or performance of an
obligation.

Nothing the IETF does in publishing RFCs or Internet-Drafts creates
security interests in published copies of those documents.  Since
we're dealing with outbound rights in this discussion, in order to
argue otherwise, it's necessary to explain how a security interest
could attach to the electronic copy of an RFC or Internet-Draft as
a consequence of downloading that copy, and whether that security
interest would be enforceable (hint: in order to enforce a security
interest, one has to have something of value to enforce it against
- due to the widespread free availability of RFCs and Internet-Drafts,
electronic copies of them have no economic value).

Please do read at least the scope and applicability provisions of
laws *before* posting about them.

--David 
----------------------------------------------------
David L. Black, Senior Technologist
EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA  01748
+1 (508) 293-7953             FAX: +1 (508) 293-7786
[email-masked]        Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754
----------------------------------------------------

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 May 2007 12:20:38 -0400

(offlist)

--On Friday, 18 May, 2007 10:04 +0100 Graham Murray
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> What is the
> standards bodies such as 

ISO -- yes.  private-sector body, headquartered in Switzerland
and subject to its rules (but its rules are rather nice for
international associations headquartered there), 

ITU -- No.  International treaty organization and part of the
UN.  Constrained by the treaty, but not individual/single
national laws,

CENELEC -- As I understand it, an organ of the EU and logically
subsidiary to some Directorate or another.  Certainly subject to
national laws if you consider the EU a "nation".  If not, you
get to sort it out.

ECMA -- more or less like ISO, only less so: a trade association
headquartered in Switzerland.

ETSI -- I don't know, but I'd lay very good odds that it is much
like ISO, with a French base.

> are they bound by the rules of a single state?

In general, unless they are formal treaty organizations,
standards bodies have to be based somewhere and tend to be more
affected by the laws of wherever that is than by  the laws of
other plances... if only because the judicial authorities in the
countries in which headquarters are located find it much easier
to exert jurisdiction.  There are ways to make one
simultaneously bound my multiple jurisdictions, but that tends
to make things harder in practice, rather than easier.

     john

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 May 2007 09:27:24 -0700

David - thanks for the reply - but I disagree... let me amplify:

Article 9 does apply to 'personal properties' which meet the terms of Good's
(i.e. the Intellectual Properties which meet the definition of 'goods' per
the UCC Article 9 definition of the Term of Art 'goods').

FWIW, The security interest is probably the licensing of the product and 
'the cost of the vetting output'
of the WG. If this is true, then the formal obligation created by any 
submission today is "to allow that
property to be vetted inside the IETF whether its published or not by the 
I-D/RFC Editors or not". Something BTW, that the IETF's submission 
disclaimer totally ignores. Denying that violates the submission agreement
IMHO, and probably sets aside the transfer of the IP to the IETF for lack of 
consideration and breach, but I could be wrong.

---

As a side note - the suspension I suffered from the [email-masked] WG would 
also violate this same constraint since in submitting anything outside of an 
established WG, I am prevented from vetting or responding to vetting issues 
per that submission by the WG Management.

Sorry, but I think you are wrong.

Todd

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, May 18, 2007 8:35 AM
Subject: RE: Form of incorporation of organizations (Re: Software
as Goods... - UCC Article 9, def #44)

Todd,

9-109. SCOPE.

(4) a consignment;

--David

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 18 May 2007 19:40:28 -0400

Todd, 

> Article 9 does apply to 'personal properties' which meet the
> terms of Good's (i.e. the Intellectual Properties which meet
> the definition of 'goods' per  the UCC Article 9 definition
> of the Term of Art 'goods').

That's correct, but not relevant.  The possible existence of a
"security interest" in the "goods" is a necessary precondition for
Article 9 (Secured Transactions) of the UCC to be applicable.
This is clear from both the 9-109 scope section that I posted
and the first sentence of the 9-102(a)(44) "Goods" definition
that you posted.  It might be useful to double-check the
definition of "security interest" in a legal dictionary.

> FWIW, The security interest is probably the licensing of the product

To be precise "licensing of the product" would be the "good" to
which the "security interest" would be attached.

The only "product" involved in the IETF's publishing is an RFC
or Internet-Draft.  In your post, I did not see an explanation of:

	"how a security interest could attach to the electronic copy of
	an RFC or Internet-Draft as a consequence of downloading that
	copy, and whether that security interest would be enforceable"

In order for something to be attached by a security interest, it
has to be possible to pledge the thing to assure payment or performance
of an obligation.  I don't see how an electronic copy of an RFC or
Internet-Draft as it leaves the IETF can be pledged as assurance
of anything (e.g., any bank that made loans solely on that basis
wouldn't last very long - I'll happily borrow $100 on that basis
and email the bank a copy of the RFC when they call the loan ...
... having written a number of RFCs, that could be a really good
deal ;-) ).

> and 'the cost of the vetting output' of the WG.

That is not a "good" because after the 'cost of the vetting output'
is expended, the funds do not exist, and hence they are not a thing
to which a security interest can be attached.  In addition, any
IP (copyright) resulting from that vetting process remains with
the IETF Trust, and hence is not part of the downloaded electronic
copy of the RFC or the Internet-Draft.  A copyright license to
that IP is part of the download, but that gets right back to the
missing explanation above.

> If this is true, then the formal obligation created by any 
> submission today is "to allow that property to be vetted
> inside the IETF whether its published or not by the I-D/RFC
> Editors or not".  Something BTW, that the IETF's submission 
> disclaimer totally ignores.

That's clearly off-topic because it's about inbound rights, and the
current discussion is about outbound rights.

Nonetheless the "then the formal obligation ..." conclusion does
not appear to follow from anything that's been stated about the UCC.

> Denying that violates the submission agreement IMHO,

Please provide a reference to the "submission agreement" and
provide the exact language in that agreement that creates
"the formal obligation".

[.. remainder snipped as not relevant ...]

Thanks,
--David

---

From: "Contreras, Jorge" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 19 May 2007 08:51:30 -0400

Todd,

Packaged software that's sold to people, or standards published in book
form, should probably be treated as "goods" under UCC Art. 2 (Sale of
Goods) and, presumably Art. 9 (Security Interests).  However, I'm not
sure I understand the relevance of Article 9 to the IETF or this
discussion.  For what it's worth, I have never heard of a technical
standard, per se, absent its sale on media (magnetic or print), being
treated as a "good" under the UCC.  I'm happy to research this issue
further if the Chairs feel it's relevant.

Jorge

-----Original Message-----
From: todd glassey [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Friday, May 18, 2007 11:01 AM
To: Harald Alvestrand; Graham Murray
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Form of incorporation of organizations (Re: Software
asGoods... - UCC Article 9, def #44)

Harald - until Jorge is willing to publicly state that RFC's are not
goods 
and contain no goods, my commentary stands...

As such I again assert that I believe that RFC's are indeed 'goods' or
at 
least controlled in the US by 'goods' laws if they contain 'goods'...
that 
said, obviously not all RFC's would qualify, but any that contained code

samples would be classifiable as such whether the code was delivered as
a 
plain-text (precompiled) or binary additions one would think.

Todd

---

From: "Contreras, Jorge" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 19 May 2007 08:59:14 -0400

I tend to agree with David.  I don't see the creation of a security
interest in anything done by IETF. 

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Friday, May 18, 2007 11:35 AM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: Form of incorporation of organizations (Re: Software
asGoods...- UCC Article 9, def #44)

Todd,

	9-109. SCOPE.

	(4) a consignment;	

--David

---

From: "TS Glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 19 May 2007 14:01:14 -0700

Opensource uses invalidate that, dont they?

...and what we are talking about is the use of something like a 
code-inclusion, and in the instance of a MIB for instance, this is something 
that qualifies I think as software goods under either article 2's 
definition.

As to what this has to do with, if the IETF is constrained by US laws then 
we have to deal with the issues of the conveyance model so it reliably meets 
the requirements in this country for conveying IP and also meets the minimum 
standards of those entities we want to rely on it. Both here and in the rest 
of the world.

Todd

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Contreras, Jorge" <[email-masked]>
To: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>; "Harald Alvestrand" 
<[email-masked]>; "Graham Murray" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Saturday, May 19, 2007 5:51 AM
Subject: RE: Form of incorporation of organizations (Re: Software 
asGoods... - UCC Article 9, def #44)

Todd,

Jorge

-----Original Message-----
From: todd glassey [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, May 18, 2007 11:01 AM
To: Harald Alvestrand; Graham Murray
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Form of incorporation of organizations (Re: Software

Todd

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 20 May 2007 07:13:14 -0700

Counsel -

FYI - check out Chief Magistrate Paul Grimm's ruling on May 4th from the 
Maryland District Court - he used a case to allow him to do what I have been 
trying to get the Court's to do for the last five years, and that is define 
a set of terms and metrics for the admissibility of Digital Evidence into 
the US Federal District Court's which is where any copyright or IP issues 
would be heard in regards to the IETF's operations.

As such any electronic submission and conveyance process must meet those 
standards as defined in the Judge's ruling 
http://www.mdd.uscourts.gov/Opinions152/Opinions/Lorraine%20v.%20Markel%20-%20ESIADMISSIBILITY%20OPINION.pdf

We all know this is not an appellate ruling but I am betting money - and a 
lot of it as a matter of fact, that the Circuit Court's will all embrace 
this quickly as a local rule until the District Court Rules Committee can 
formally act to enact this as a Court-Wide requirement.

In the mean time the issues of any Digital Evidence system are as follows:

Relevance; F.R.E. 401
Authentication; F.R.E. 901
Hearsay (if offered for truth) F.R.E 801
Original or Duplicate F.R.E. 1001-1008
Probative Value Outweighed by Prejudicial Value or F.R.E. 403

So maybe we should model how the IETF's participation, submission, and 
release mechanisms meet these five key tests now that the Judge has set the 
bar-height as it were...

More commentary inline below:

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Contreras, Jorge" <[email-masked]>
To: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>; "Harald Alvestrand" 

Todd,

Packaged software that's sold to people, or standards published in book
form, should probably be treated as "goods" under UCC Art. 2 (Sale of
Goods) and, presumably Art. 9 (Security Interests).

TSG responds: the key issue I think is the use of the term Technical 
Standard which is a much more narrower scope than what the IETF's use 
license is setting up. But the issues of the conveyance model are also 
important especially in a commercial or

However, I'm not

TSG Responds: the Code inclusions are that 'good' as described previously. 
Not the standard itself, but the RFC's contain more than the 'actual 
standard' which is a mechanical description of the 'thing' being 
standardized. When there are code-snippets or MIB's included, and those can 
be compiled and installed into end-user systems directly, all bets are off, 
and the standard then contains a specific good that is usable and is 
controlled under the Article 2/Article 9 issue... Likewise, the processes 
for conveyance of those submittals must also meet the new Federal 
requirement's for admissibility too one would think, eh?

Jorge

-----Original Message-----
From: todd glassey [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, May 18, 2007 11:01 AM
To: Harald Alvestrand; Graham Murray
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Form of incorporation of organizations (Re: Software

Todd

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 20 May 2007 07:16:51 -0700

David -
----- Original Message ----- 
From: <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, May 18, 2007 4:40 PM
Subject: RE: Form of incorporation of organizations (Re: Software 

Todd,

> of the Term of Art 'goods').

That's correct, but not relevant.

TSG Responds: I disagree - Yes it is...

The possible existence of a
"security interest" in the "goods" is a necessary precondition for
Article 9 (Secured Transactions) of the UCC to be applicable.

TSG Responds: The Security Interest is based on the cost of the creation of 
the goods and the expense that the party creating them undergoes in that 
creation. Also the commitment to allow the vetting of those goods whether 
the IETF Publications Desk (the RFC Editor's or the IETF Management) allows 
that document's publication or not. Otherwise, this gets really messy in 
that there is a massive tax issue with the submissions and their being 
written down from the submitters IMHO...

TSG Responds: Because the IETF's outgoing license is specific to "any use", 
not just a use for the standards process or the support of the standard. The 
IETF's licensing model pretty obviously allows anyone to use the IP in any 
form for anything, including commercial products and other deriviatives 
without any control to either the IETF or to the submitters.

TSG Continues: This is part of the 'lie' that the submitter still retains 
some control. Likewise, there is nothing to protect the submitter from 
nefarious or breach issues inside the IETF itself which would foster the 
unauthoritzed or unintended release of IP for more than just the 
'participation in the development of the standard', which BTW is what the 
IETF was chartered in its birth to do.

of an obligation.

TSG Responds: Again the obligation is to allow the party submitting that 
material to vet it in the WG whether its published or not, and if there is 
no WG to allow it to be vetted in the 'default' WG that is used to catch all 
other non-assigned submissions.

I don't see how an electronic copy of an RFC or

Thanks,
--David

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 20 May 2007 07:28:42 -0700

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
To: "Contreras, Jorge" <[email-masked]>; "Harald Alvestrand" 
<[email-masked]>; "Graham Murray" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2007 7:13 AM
Subject: Re: Form of incorporation of organizations (Re: Software 
asGoods...- UCC Article 9, def #44)

> Maryland District Court - he used a case to allow him to do what I have 
> been trying to get the Court's to do for the last five years, and that is 
> define a set of terms and metrics for the admissibility of Digital 
> Evidence into the US Federal District Court's which is where any copyright 
> or IP issues would be heard in regards to the IETF's operations.
>
> release mechanisms meet these five key tests now that the Judge has set 
> the bar-height as it were...
>

Private implementation.

> standardized. When there are code-snippets or MIB's included, and those 
> can be compiled and installed into end-user systems directly, all bets are 
> off, and the standard then contains a specific good that is usable and is

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sun, 20 May 2007 13:00:01 -0400

Todd,

> creation.

"based on" is not sufficient - there has to be an actual "security
interest" that moves with the "goods".  The copyright IP that results
from the creation process remains with the IETF Trust and is not
moved by the act of downloading a copy of an RFC or Internet-Draft,
hence any security interest in that copyright would also not move.
While a security interest could in principle be attached to copyright
IP held by the IETF Trust, any such security interest would not move
as a consequence of the download because the IETF Trust retains its
copyright after the download is complete.

> Also the commitment to allow the vetting of those goods whether 
> the IETF Publications Desk (the RFC Editor's or the IETF Management)
> allows that document's publication or not.

2nd-time request: What document states this commitment and what is the
precise language that creates it? Please consider section 3.5 of
BCP 78 in answering this question.

[... snip ...]

> not just a use for the standards process or the support of the
standard.

That does not explain "how a security interest could attach ...".  A
"how" answer is required, not a "why/because" answer.

> The IETF's licensing model pretty obviously allows anyone to use the
IP
> in any form for anything, including commercial products and other
> deriviatives without any control to either the IETF or to the
submitters.

That is not obvious - please consult the WG's email archives to
understand why some of the members of the open source community believe
that there are derivative works limitations in the current copyright
licensing model that forbid certain things from being done.

[ ... snip ...]

> has to be possible to pledge the thing to assure payment or 
> performance of an obligation.
> 

That is an "obligation" that could be secured by a "security interest",
but it is not a "security interest".  Please consult a legal dictionary,
and provide an example of a "security interest" that satisfies the
legal definition of that term.  If this is not clear, I suggest
consulting a lawyer to better understand what a "security interest" is.

3rd-time request: Please explain:

Absent such an explanation, I maintain that UCC Article 9 is not
applicable to IETF's publication (outbound) activities.

Thanks,
--David

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 May 2007 06:08:03 -0700

Its a Non-Recourse type of Security Interest... See article 9's def's
T.
----- Original Message ----- 
From: <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2007 10:00 AM
Subject: RE: Form of incorporation of organizations (Re: Software 

Todd,

[... snip ...]

standard.

IP
submitters.

[ ... snip ...]

Thanks,
--David