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

[Todd Glassey <tglassey at earthlink.net>]

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 <harald at alvestrand.no>
>Sent: May 17, 2007 11:46 AM
>To: todd glassey <tglassey at earthlink.net>
>Cc: ipr-wg at ietf.org
>Subject: Re: Software as Goods... - UCC Article 9, def #44
>
>
>
>--On 17. mai 2007 09:41 -0700 todd glassey <tglassey at earthlink.net> 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
Ipr-wg at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg