Subject: Jorge as the IETF's lawyer, does the merging of the two sets of rights defined in the BCP78 document make an exclusive?

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2006 22:16:49 -0800

Jorge - it appears to me after reading the Copyright Circulars, the
Copyright Act, and the RFC2026 and BCP78/79 pair that if the limited rights
of the Individual against the IETF's Template which are contained in a
derivative work, are in fact signed back to the IETF when that submission is
made, and based on this it appears this process "creates an exclusive right
of the IETF to that derivative work".

Which is to say, since the Submitter retains no rights to the IETF's
template, the combined derivative is then the wholly the property of the
IETF which makes the transfer of the IP to the IETF for re-publication an
exclusive one, right?... And so we get to wet signatures again in that as
the US Government's circular clearly states, "Anything that builds or
transfers an exclusive right must be codified with a wet signature".

The fact that the IETF then in another grant gives this derivative IP away
to anyone does not change the fact that the original grant to the IETF was
an exclusive one. The reason is simple they are two separate contractual
agreements  - one between the Submitter and the IETF and the other between
the IETF and the World. That the Submitter happens to be a member of the
Class "World" does not change the fact that the IP is exclusively controlled
by the IETF in this process by the ceding of the Submitter's rights to the
Derivative work to the IETF.

As the IETF's Lawyer can you correct me if I am wrong here?

Todd Glassey

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