Re: #1400 Opinion poll - question draft

[Ted Hardie <hardie at qualcomm.com>]

At 10:10 PM -0500 12/5/06, John C Klensin wrote:
>I think those are non-issues and
>should be dealt with by (explicitly if necessary) simply making
>them special cases of "translation" above.  You should check
>with Jorge, but I believe that there is some case law supporting
>interpreting those types of modifications as "translation", even
>without very explicit definitions.

I note that I have already objected to modeling this as translation,
since I think that is understood as being for the benefit of the human
reader.  If Jorge says that's what the courts say translation means
in this context, I will shut up.


>I assert, without taking a position as to whether it is the
>right thing to do, that, with a proper definition of
>"translation", all of the rights needed to strictly implement a
>standard are covered by "copy, extract, distribute, and
>translate" or words to that effect. 

This still does not seem to include the right to run the
code, something I mentioned previously.  It also misses
some of "use its information content" that Simon has
pointed out in the past.  It is possible that this is included
in "extract", but I think that we need to go back to the
theory of describing what we want and then letting the lawyers
tell us how to say it.  I believe that current list is:

"copy, extract, distribute, and translate all text; copy, extract,
distribute, run, derive any information content needed to
perform the operations above, and modify (both to accomplish
the rights preceding and to ensure broad distribution".

If I have got that wrong, please tell me.  Assuming it is correct,
even if incomplete, if "translate" as a legal phrase subsumes
some of that, great, but I don't think we should subsume it at
this point in the discussion.
				Ted





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