Re: Software as Intangible Bit Streams -- News at 11

[Don Armstrong <don at debian.org>]

On Thu, 17 May 2007, Todd Glassey wrote:
> 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.

Please read about UCITA and the necessity of states to amend the UCC
to specifically define software as a good when sold; Virginia is a
UCITA state, so the UCC specifically does not apply to software.
Additionally, the precise nature of licenses and software under them
is confounded by the differing opinions of district courts, which (to
my knowledge) has yet to be unified.

That said, none of what UCC, UCITA, your state's, virginia's or the
transnational republic laws state matters at all in the context of
outbound rights, where we are assuming that the to-be-written inbound
rights document will handle any necessary legal complications required
to license IETF appropriately. It is appropriate to bring up this when
the licensing argreement has been written if it is deficient, not now.


Don Armstrong

-- 
Taxes are not levied for the benefit of the taxed.
 -- Robert Heinlein _Time Enough For Love_ p250

http://www.donarmstrong.com              http://rzlab.ucr.edu

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