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

[todd.glassey at att.net]

The key issue is in not allowing people to interpret anything including the staff of this WG - everything ***MUST*** be totally spelled out.

todd
 -------------- Original message ----------------------
From: "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



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