RE: IPR Questions Raised by Sam Hartman at the IETF 73 Plenary

["Lawrence Rosen" <lrosen at rosenlaw.com>]

> On Dec 12, 2008, at 1:07 PM, Russ Housley wrote:
> 
> > This was the consensus of the IPR WG and the IETF,
 
> On Dec 13, 2008, at 8:52 AM, Cullen Jennings responded:
> I doubt the IPR WG really fully thought about this or understood it.
> If someone who was deeply involved can provide definitive evidence of
> this one way or the other that would be great. I am pretty sure this
> was not widely understood when it was IETF LC and I very confident it
> was not understood by the IESG when when they approved it.

Cullen Jennings is right. I remember that the IPR WG consistently focused on
narrow issues rather than assessing the big picture.

As to Sam Hartman's original question, he is free to take any RFC and modify
it to describe the essential functions of a different industry standard
functional specification without asking anyone's permission. He needn't seek
a copyright license from IETF or from any contributor to IETF. Quite simply,
copyright doesn't apply:

   "In no case does copyright protection for an original work
   of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system,
   method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, 
   regardless of the form in which it is describFrom ietf-bounces at ietf.org  Sat Dec 13 11:04:34 2008
Return-Path: <ietf-bounces at ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietf-archive at megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-ietf-archive at core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF0643A692D;
	Sat, 13 Dec 2008 11:04:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: ietf at core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf at core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AAFDC3A692D
	for <ietf at core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 13 Dec 2008 11:04:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5
	tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32])
	by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 4+m9+BXlsyKt for <ietf at core3.amsl.com>;
	Sat, 13 Dec 2008 11:04:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rosenlaw.com (rosenlaw.com [192.220.47.202])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CD353A67EC
	for <ietf at ietf.org>; Sat, 13 Dec 2008 11:04:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 78785 invoked by uid 12234); 13 Dec 2008 19:04:19 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO LROSENTOSHIBA) ([208.106.45.202])
	(envelope-sender <lrosen at rosenlaw.com>)
	by 192.220.47.202 (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP
	for <ietf at ietf.org>; 13 Dec 2008 19:04:19 -0000
From: "Lawrence Rosen" <lrosen at rosenlaw.com>
To: <ietf at ietf.org>
References: <20081211224832.C04F33A69BD at core3.amsl.com><87zlj1zn0n.fsf at mocca.josefsson.org><ED38349F-47E1-4A16-866C-7E408FE151E1 at multicasttech.com><DE1EBB80D3F89D4427307614 at p3.int.jck.com><87fxktxn7f.fsf at mocca.josefsson.org><07892C8A-21AB-4C0D-98FF-2A8C92D450FB at multicasttech.com><20081212201956.0CA2128C207 at core3.amsl.com>
	<8D78B6C7-DA00-482F-B318-B928B62DCF9F at cisco.com>
Subject: RE: IPR Questions Raised by Sam Hartman at the IETF 73 Plenary
Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2008 11:04:18 -0800
Organization: Rosenlaw & Einschlag
Message-ID: <859EA61D3E604B948E9ADA2ABBFB4265 at LROSENTOSHIBA>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5579
Thread-Index: AcldQzRlkS6WFEyARE2RHV1LUSk05wADH4nQ
In-Reply-To: <8D78B6C7-DA00-482F-B318-B928B62DCF9F at cisco.com>
X-BeenThere: ietf at ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: lrosen at rosenlaw.com
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>,
	<mailto:ietf-request at ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf at ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request at ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>,
	<mailto:ietf-request at ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: ietf-bounces at ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces at ietf.org

> On Dec 12, 2008, at 1:07 PM, Russ Housley wrote:
> 
> > This was the consensus of the IPR WG and the IETF,
 
> On Dec 13, 2008, at 8:52 AM, Cullen Jennings responded:
> I doubt the IPR WG really fully thought about this or understood it.
> If someone who was deeply involved can provide definitive evidence of
> this one way or the other that would be great. I am pretty sure this
> was not widely understood when it was IETF LC and I very confident it
> was not understood by the IESG when when they approved it.

Cullen Jennings is right. I remember that the IPR WG consistently focused on
narrow issues rather than assessing the big picture.

As to Sam Hartman's original question, he is free to take any RFC and modify
it to describe the essential functions of a different industry standard
functional specification without asking anyone's permission. He needn't seek
a copyright license from IETF or from any contributor to IETF. Quite simply,
copyright doesn't apply:

   "In no case does copyright protection for an original work
   of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system,
   method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, 
   regardless of the form in which it is described, expled, explained,
   illustrated, or embodied in such work." 17 USC 102(b).

The notion is not right, albeit that it is reflected in the current IETF IPR
policy, that a process can be in any way restricted from being improved
because someone planted a copyright notice on its essential description. An
description of a process, method of operation, etc., cannot be locked away
and prevented from amendment and improvement because of copyright. Allowing
that would subject our functional process specifications in IETF to 100-year
copyright monopolies even though there aren't even 20-year patent monopolies
that apply to that specification. Nobody owns those ideas or the essential
descriptions of those ideas; they are public domain.

So my answer to Sam's question is: I dare anyone to try and stop you or me
from taking an IETF RFC and revising it as necessary to express any new
idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle,
or discovery. And I dare anyone to try and stop IETF or any other standards
organization from adopting such an improvement as a revised RFC because of a
copyright notice.

/Larry

Lawrence Rosen
Rosenlaw & Einschlag, a technology law firm (www.rosenlaw.com)
3001 King Ranch Road, Ukiah, CA 95482
707-485-1242 * cell: 707-478-8932 * fax: 707-485-1243
Skype: LawrenceRosen

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


ained,
   illustrated, or embodied in such work." 17 USC 102(b).

The notion is not right, albeit that it is reflected in the current IETF IPR
policy, that a process can be in any way restricted from being improved
because someone planted a copyright notice on its essential description. An
description of a process, method of operation, etc., cannot be locked away
and prevented from amendment and improvement because of copyright. Allowing
that would subject our functional process specifications in IETF to 100-year
copyright monopolies even though there aren't even 20-year patent monopolies
that apply to that specification. Nobody owns those ideas or the essential
descriptions of those ideas; they are public domain.

So my answer to Sam's question is: I dare anyone to try and stop you or me
from taking an IETF RFC and revising it as necessary to express any new
idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle,
or discovery. And I dare anyone to try and stop IETF or any other standards
organization from adopting such an improvement as a revised RFC because of a
copyright notice.

/Larry

Lawrence Rosen
Rosenlaw & Einschlag, a technology law firm (www.rosenlaw.com)
3001 King Ranch Road, Ukiah, CA 95482
707-485-1242 * cell: 707-478-8932 * fax: 707-485-1243
Skype: LawrenceRosen

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf