Subject: RE: CLOSED #1198 Proposed resolution - Implementation andderivativework

From: "Contreras, Jorge" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2006 09:06:27 -0500

>There are YET another set of deriviative rights, and these are not
>republishing, they are use-rights and these clearly have nothing to do with
>IETF standards or the process of creating them except there is a rule that
>there must be two (2) interoperable ports built - and the rights to build
>those ports for the purpose of creating the standard have to be addressed
>and also the rights to what happens to those rights when the standards
>process is completed./

I think that just about everyone else who has discussed this topic
(including myself) disagrees that these are "derivative rights"
within the context of the document copyright discussion.  Patents may
be at issue, and this is a wholly different topic, and one that is,
I believe, adequately covered in RFC 3979.

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

---

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2006 15:38:25 +0100

Todd,

speaking as chair:

You are speaking to a closed subject. Unless you have new evidence to 
bring to the table, you are out of order.

New evidence would, for instance, be a statement from someone who's 
qualified to give a legal opinion stating that the resolution is not in 
accordance with law, and citing a legal ruling, opinion or other 
precedent that makes this clear.

                     Harald Alvestrand, IPR WG chair

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2006 06:43:58 -0800

No Jorge I think you are wrong - but if you are willing to formally state
that it is your guidance as the IETF's counsel I am happy with it. Any
litigation would leverage WilmerHale's Malpractice Bonding -

Many people may find that a real issue for me to say that here in this list
of civility - but they have not had to pursue IP rights in court that were
improperly licensed and then the licenses propagated so that the problem is
not the people that licensed the IP originally but those that they have now
relicensed to and who have technology built that uses the bad licenses. I
have... That said the reproduction rights alone do not meet with the needs
of the releases necessary to build an Internet Standard. And unless you want
to formally claim that is not true, the issue of reproduction rights for the
printed copies used in getting external commentary on IP do need derivative
works rights if your expecting to get media clips that are altered sent back
into the IETF for consideration.

The point is that the vetting process requires that people be able to cut
and paste and then alter what they cut and pasted into their workspace from
IETF documents. These works once excerpted and altered are derivatives by my
reading of the law... is this wrong and if so how?

As to the rights to build a standard - how are they addressed in the
republication's process rights???

Todd Glassey
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Contreras, Jorge" <[email-masked]>
To: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>; "Simon Josefsson"
<[email-masked]>
Cc: "Harald Alvestrand" <[email-masked]>; <>
Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2006 6:06 AM
Subject: RE: CLOSED #1198 Proposed resolution -
Implementationandderivativework