RE: The Law... Definition of Derivative Claims...

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

> > To the extent that copying an expressive piece of code is necessary 
> > for an implementation of a functional protocol in a 
> published standard 
> > that we
> > *intend* to be implemented, copyright can't prevent the 
> copying. This 
> > is based on the "merger doctrine," as expressed in the 
> section of the 
> > Copyright Act that Harald previously referenced. And when a 
> change to 
> > that code is required in order to achieve a functional result, that 
> > change can't be prevented based on an exclusive right to 
> create derivative works.
> 
> Interesting.  How much modifications are permitted?  If what 
> you say is true, it seems third parties already have some 
> leeway to argue that they have the right to incorporate ASN.1 
> schemas and make modifications to them, regardless of the 
> IETF outbound copying conditions.

I do not suggest that we live with implied rights based on the merger
doctrine. We should make our rules explicit. That way your question ["How
much modifications are permitted?"] won't have to be analyzed by everyone
who wants to implement our specifications.

My note was merely intended to suggest that Todd is quite wrong when he
asserts that the exclusive right of authors to create derivative works
automatically makes IETF specifications unavailable for implementation and
modification. 

/Larry

Lawrence Rosen
Rosenlaw & Einschlag, technology law offices (www.rosenlaw.com)
Stanford University School of Law, Lecturer in Law
3001 King Ranch Road, Ukiah, CA 95482
707-485-1242  *  fax: 707-485-1243
Author of "Open Source Licensing: Software Freedom and 
   Intellectual Property Law" (Prentice Hall 2004) 
   [Available also at www.rosenlaw.com/oslbook.htm]
 
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Simon Josefsson [mailto:jas at extundo.com] 
> Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 12:52 AM
> To: lrosen at rosenlaw.com
> Cc: ipr-wg at ietf.org
> Subject: Re: The Law... Definition of Derivative Claims...
> 
> "Lawrence Rosen" <lrosen at rosenlaw.com> writes:
> 
> > To the extent that copying an expressive piece of code is necessary 
> > for an implementation of a functional protocol in a 
> published standard 
> > that we
> > *intend* to be implemented, copyright can't prevent the 
> copying. This 
> > is based on the "merger doctrine," as expressed in the 
> section of the 
> > Copyright Act that Harald previously referenced. And when a 
> change to 
> > that code is required in order to achieve a functional result, that 
> > change can't be prevented based on an exclusive right to 
> create derivative works.
> 
> Interesting.  How much modifications are permitted?  If what 
> you say is true, it seems third parties already have some 
> leeway to argue that they have the right to incorporate ASN.1 
> schemas and make modifications to them, regardless of the 
> IETF outbound copying conditions.
> 
> Making those rights clear is still useful, of course, because 
> it will educate IETF participants how their documents will 
> likely be used.
> 
> Regards,
> Simon


_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wg at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg