Re: CLOSED #1198 Proposed resolution - Implementation and derivative work

Sorry Harald - the derivative rights requirements can be gleaned from this
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.html#derivative the USD Government's
COPYRIGHT.GOV website's FAQ's on Derivative Works...

I suggest that you review the law as it stands and then recant these words
since the derivative rights section is also clearly broken - why is it that
this group thinks it gets to re-write law.

Todd Glassey

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Harald Alvestrand" <harald <at> alvestrand.no>
To: <ipr-wg <at> ietf.org>
Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2006 12:38 AM
Subject: CLOSED #1198 Proposed resolution - Implementation and derivative
work

*

> After having heard the discussion, I conclude that this resolution is
> accepted by the WG, and the issue is closed.
>
> Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
> > I think this has gone on long enough.
> >
> > This is a WG Last Call on issue #1198, with a timeout of one week, and
> > I'll close it on February 28.
> >
> > SUGGESTED RESOLUTION:
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------
> > Implementations of IETF standards that incorporate pieces of IETF
> > documents (such as MIBs or data tables) need to have the right to
> > produce derivative works based on those pieces.
> >
> > Implementations of IETF standards that do not incorporate such pieces
> > do not need the right to produce such derivative works.
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------
> > I believe that corresponds to the advice of counsel, and to the
> > opinion of the vast majority of this working group.
> >
> > Note that this has absolutely no effect on the need to have rights to
> > practice applicable patents; this is strictly about copyright.
> >
> > I know that Todd Glassey does not agree with this statement. Other
> > people who do not agree with this statement are hereby encouraged to
> > speak up; references to specific case law (in any jurisdiction) that
> > is clearly contrary to this opinion will be appreciated.
> >
> >                 Harald Alvestrand, co-chair of IPR WG
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Ipr-wg mailing list
> > Ipr-wg <at> ietf.org
> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg
> >
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ipr-wg mailing list
> Ipr-wg <at> ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

Re: #1198 Proposed resolution - Implementation and derivative work

--On 22. februar 2006 14:39 -0800 Don Armstrong <don <at> debian.org> wrote:

> On Wed, 22 Feb 2006, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
>> SUGGESTED RESOLUTION:
>
> [...]
>
>> Implementations of IETF standards that do not incorporate such
>> pieces do not need the right to produce such derivative works.
>
> This appears to be a tautology. That is, works that do not incorporate
> pieces are not derivative works, and therefore don't need any
> permision.

I think it's a tautology, but Todd Glassey seems to think that it is not. 
The Last Call is intended to verify that the WG is OK with considering it 
to be a fact (whether it's a tautology or not is not something we need to 
decide, I think).

> Alternatively, the resolution is attempting to limit the extractable
> part of IETF standards to specific portions of the standard to be
> determined later, and forestall any further discussion on allowing the
> larger portions of the work to be used as a derivative work.
>
> If the latter is the case, I suggest removing it from the resolution,
> as it's not clear that we've come to a consensus on that point;[1] if
> the former is the case, I suggest removing it from the resolution, as
> it is essentially a no-op.

That's a different issue, as I commented to Simon, and one which I'm 
painfully aware that we haven't got a resolution on.

                   Harald

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

Re: #1198 Proposed resolution - Implementation and derivative work

--On onsdag, februar 22, 2006 15:57:07 +0100 Simon Josefsson 
<jas <at> extundo.com> wrote:

*

> arald Tveit Alvestrand <harald <at> alvestrand.no> writes:
>
>> I think this has gone on long enough.
>>
>> This is a WG Last Call on issue #1198, with a timeout of one week, and
>> I'll close it on February 28.
>>
>> SUGGESTED RESOLUTION:
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>> Implementations of IETF standards that incorporate pieces of IETF
>> documents (such as MIBs or data tables) need to have the right to
>> produce derivative works based on those pieces.
>
> FWIW, I agree with this solution.
>
> I note that some may consider 'text' to be something that you would
> have to incorporate in an implementation in order to implement it.  My
> point is that in the above, it may have been implied that only 'code'
> is applicable for this rule.  I'm not sure if this was intentional.

It was very much intentional that I wrote "pieces" and not "code" - that 
allows us to close this issue without having to solve the "what is code" 
issue first....