Subject: Copyright

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 14:35:51 -0500

It looks like I will not be able to attend the iprwg meeting because
as I look at the agenda there are going to be conflicts.  Scheduling
general area must be quite challenging.

I sent two messages on the copyright issue neither of which has
received any response.  I'm still very interested in these issues.

1) I argue that even if we do not liberalize our copyright, we need to
   get sufficient rights from authors to do anything we might consider
   doing in the future.  There is a high cost to not doing so.

2) I asked the question of how do we believe our restrictions on
   derivative works help the standards process.  I presented arguments
   that I don't think they accomplish the goal of preventing people
   from taking our protocols and modifying them and presented an
   argument that they hurt interoperability by decreasing the
   likelihoo that modified versions of our standards will be
   documented.

--Sam

_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

---

From: Bill Sommerfeld <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 19:01:07 -0500

>    likelihoo that modified versions of our standards will be

For me, the key factor is that modified versions of the specifications
must not be misrepresented as the original.  

as one specific example, the GPL requires that modified versions carry 
a notice of the changes contained therein.

I think this can be accomplished without preventing all derivative works.

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 17:40:44 -0500

>>>>> "Bill" == Bill Sommerfeld <[email-masked]> writes:

    Bill> On Thu, 2005-02-10 at 14:35, Sam Hartman wrote:
    >> 2) I asked the question of how do we believe our restrictions
    >> on derivative works help the standards process.  I presented
    >> arguments that I don't think they accomplish the goal of
    >> preventing people from taking our protocols and modifying them
    >> and presented an argument that they hurt interoperability by
    >> decreasing the likelihoo that modified versions of our
    >> standards will be documented.

    Bill> For me, the key factor is that modified versions of the
    Bill> specifications must not be misrepresented as the original.

I'm completely fine with this requirement.  I think everyone involved
in the discussion has agreed that this is either not harmful or is
necessary.