headers
Harald Tveit Alvestrand | 2 Feb 09:59
Picon

Re: International definition of "fair use"

Endre Jarraux Walls skrev:
> Question - would that mean that works performed within the IETF, regardless
> of where they're done would fall under US copyright laws?
>   
I can't imagine a plausible scenario where this would be true.

(if I put a song into an I-D, published from Norway, the I-D is under my 
Norwegian copyright, which is licensed, not transferred, to the IETF 
trust. If you then sing it at a French IETF meeting in a WG session, the 
performance is probably (c) you and licensed to the Trust since it 
occured at an IETF meeting, but will be under French copyright law since 
it occured in France.)

But I'm not a lawyer, so my imagination might be limited.

              Harald
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
TSG | 2 Feb 16:21
Picon
Favicon

Re: International definition of "fair use"

Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
> Endre Jarraux Walls skrev:
>> Question - would that mean that works performed within the IETF, 
>> regardless
>> of where they're done would fall under US copyright laws?
>>  
That's exactly what it means because the publisher entity is physically 
located in the US. Also realize that most IETF NoteWell Submissions are 
in fact derivatives of other IP's which the IETF may not own the rights 
to in any form. The IETF's claim it owns underlying IP rights to 
something I (or anyone discusses) is more than ludicrous its a lie. It 
may own my words but that's all. It DOES NOT own any rights to the IP I 
was discussing
> I can't imagine a plausible scenario where this would be true.
Oh its pretty simple Harald, the IETF is a US Corporation and so 
anything it publishes through its US based publication gateways is in 
fact controlled by US Copyright. Is that really that far beyond your 
imagination?
>
> (if I put a song into an I-D, published from Norway, the I-D is under 
> my Norwegian copyright, 
No its not. The I-D is under the copyright laws of its publisher's 
jurisdiction.  The real question you should be asking Harald is whether 
a IP work published in one country or jurisdiction can have the laws of 
other jurisdictions control it???

 From my Lay Understanding in civil contracts where a choice of law is 
selected this sometimes works, but in the instance of a work published, 
that work would be controlled by the copyright laws of the Jurisdiction 
of the publisher and not the sponsoring entity.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
TSG | 3 Feb 03:18
Picon
Favicon

Re: International definition of "fair use"

Dean Anderson wrote:
> Inline:
>
> On Thu, 29 Jan 2009, TSG wrote:
>
>   
>> Endre Jarraux Walls wrote:
>>     
>>> Question - would that mean that works performed within the IETF, regardless
>>> of where they're done would fall under US copyright laws?
>>>   
>>>       
>> Thats exactly what it means. The issue is the legal-jurisdiction of the 
>> entity who is sponsoring the license language. That language would be 
>> constrained by US Law's since the IETF's processes are constrained by US 
>> Federal and State Corporate Law.
>>
>> If for instance the IETF were to take the copyright statement off of the 
>> works then they could be usable everywhere. Or one would think that the 
>> FCPA (foreign corrupt practices act) might also figure in but hey - I am 
>> not a lawyer so what do I know.
>>
>> Todd Glassey
So lets take this a step farther.

Lets me submit something I was thinking about to the list.. Its the 
lyrics to the song Yellow Submarine... and let me ask this really silly 
question - who owns that song now? the IETF?... Anyone talk with Lord 
McCartney's Barrister about that yet?
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
TSG | 3 Feb 17:24
Picon
Favicon

Re: International definition of "fair use"

Dean Anderson wrote:
> Hahaha.  You should submit a properly formatted ID with these lyrics as
> an individual submission. ;-)
>
> 		--Dean
>   
Yes and because Vint Cerf was allowed to publish his XMas I-D they would 
have legal trouble for saying they wouldn't publish it too. But lets get 
back to the issue of the failure of the current Intellectual Property 
conveyance model that NoteWell provides. The submission of the lyric of 
Yellow Submarine clearly document's that third-party genesis can and 
does occur against third-party controlled IP's - so how do we deal with 
this? - lets explore that question here.

That said - the first step is properly defining the problem and the 
issue is simple -  by its very definition "NoteWell is a process program 
which assigns the rights to the core IP and all representations of said 
IP which are uttered through IETF Mailing Lists and at IETF Meetings". 
The problem is then with NoteWell's definition is that a person or email 
server can utter submissions (technology statements) about specific 
Intellectual Properties (IP) which are observations or consulting 
evaluations.

Likewise they also could be "what-if blue-sky conversations" about some 
derivative of that IP. What this NoteWell issue applies to is then those 
words. The failing is that under NoteWell alone those words may be a 
story about some IP and not actually convey the ownership of that IP, 
but rather the licensing of the story about that core IP.

What is important there is the idea that this doesn't give the IETF the
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Noel Chiappa | 25 Feb 18:23
Picon
Gravatar

Call for volunteers to discuss IETF patent policy with Richard Stallman

Hi all, while discussing the whole TLS-AUTHZ situation with Richard Stallman
of the FSF, he asked me to put him in touch with a couple of IETFers who are
interested in trying to get the IETF to commit to staying further away from
patent encumbrances in standards (distinctly patents, as opposed to other
forms of IPR).

I told him that I would try and rustle up some people, but that I thought it
better to find some people on both sides for him to interact with, because I
was concerned that if he only interacted with one side, he might get too
hopeful a view of the likelihood of success for an attempt to change IETF
policy in this area.

He agreed that this would be good, since such an effort would involve a lot
of effort, and he would only want to undertake it if it had a significant
chance of success, and he did want to get a realistic appraisal of how things
stood.

So, if anyone wants to volunteer to interact with him on this matter, his
email is "rms -at- gnu.org" (and this is CC'd to him), and please contact him.

Sorry to the TLS members for the BCC to them too (if any of them are
wondering how this got to them :-), if it's out of your scope, but given that
TLS-AUTHZ was the cause of all this, I thought there might be some there who
aren't on the IPR mailing list who might be interested to responding to him.

Please also note that I am just _relaying_ this request, I am not myself
directly deeply interested in whether the IETF has, or has not, a strong
prohibition on patents; I am not receiving email from either list, and
propose to take no further part in any of this. So if you want me to see any
particular reply, for some reason, please make sure you CC me directly.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
TSG | 25 Feb 19:21
Picon
Favicon

Re: Call for volunteers to discuss IETF patent policy with Richard Stallman

Noel Chiappa wrote:
> Hi all, while discussing the whole TLS-AUTHZ situation with Richard Stallman
> of the FSF, he asked me to put him in touch with a couple of IETFers who are
> interested in trying to get the IETF to commit to staying further away from
> patent encumbrances in standards (distinctly patents, as opposed to other
> forms of IPR).
>   
my feeling is that this is very inappropriate and paints the FSF as a 
political lobbyist entity which is what the IETF is not set up to become.
> I told him that I would try and rustle up some people, but that I thought it
> better to find some people on both sides for him to interact with, because I
> was concerned that if he only interacted with one side, he might get too
> hopeful a view of the likelihood of success for an attempt to change IETF
> policy in this area.
>   
Thanks... again the IETF should offer a standard to anyone or any IP 
which meets the technical terms of the issuance of that standard. I.e. 
properly vetted, and which meets the IETF's interoperability testing 
standards too.

The only people that patented IP would be offensive to are people who 
want to destroy global patents, and that is an issue about changing the 
world, and not about qualifying that some technology met the standards 
for the issuance of an IETF Standard. If the FSF wants to create 
FSF-License style IP's then it should operate its own IETF-type 
standards process for publicly available IP's only.
> He agreed that this would be good, since such an effort would involve a lot
> of effort, and he would only want to undertake it if it had a significant
> chance of success, and he did want to get a realistic appraisal of how things
> stood.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
TSG | 28 Feb 15:39
Picon
Favicon

Question about the meaning of the following boilerplate statement...

Since this appears as a part of the legal boilerplate on a I-D I have 
three questions to ask..

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  

So then by US Law they are copyright under the US Copyright act since 
they are published by an agent in located in the US. The also are constrained 
by a set of steps and processes for those working groups as well 
including th the IETF's document templates.

   Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
   Drafts.

OK - let me ask the questions about this ambiguous block of text:

1)   Is the Term of Art "Internet-Draft" a trademark of the IETF? - let 
me answer that question - NO...

Internet_draft:__http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=toc&state=4009%3Ai60kv1.1.1&p_search=searchss&p_L=50&BackReference=&p_plural=yes&p_s_PARA1=&p_tagrepl~%3A=PARA1%24LD&expr=PARA1+AND+PARA2&p_s_PARA2=Internet_Draft&p_tagrepl~%3A=PARA2%24COMB&p_op_ALL=AND&a_default=search&a_search=Submit+Query&a_search=Submit+Query
Internet-Draft yields one filer - and it was done last year in 2008- 
http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4009:i60kv1.3.1

2)   OK - so we were told that the TRUST had taken care of this I 
thought. But it clearly has not been - so then let me also ask why was 
this not handled years ago by the Secretariat's office.

3)   If others are allowed to publish Internet-Drafts (as a Term of Art) 
does this mean they are republishing the IETF's IP's or that they are
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
TSG | 28 Feb 16:37
Picon
Favicon

Re: Question about the meaning of the following boilerplate statement...

TSG wrote:
> Since this appears as a part of the legal boilerplate on a I-D I have 
> three questions to ask..
>
>   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
>   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. 
> So then by US Law they are copyright under the US Copyright act since 
> they are published by an agent in located in the US. The also are 
> constrained by a set of steps and processes for those working groups 
> as well including th the IETF's document templates.
>
>   Note that
>   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
>   Drafts.
>
> OK - let me ask the questions about this ambiguous block of text:
>
> 1)   Is the Term of Art "Internet-Draft" a trademark of the IETF? - 
> let me answer that question - NO...
>
>
Internet_draft:__http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=toc&state=4009%3Ai60kv1.1.1&p_search=searchss&p_L=50&BackReference=&p_plural=yes&p_s_PARA1=&p_tagrepl~%3A=PARA1%24LD&expr=PARA1+AND+PARA2&p_s_PARA2=Internet_Draft&p_tagrepl~%3A=PARA2%24COMB&p_op_ALL=AND&a_default=search&a_search=Submit+Query&a_search=Submit+Query 
>
> Internet-Draft yields one filer - and it was done last year in 2008- 
> http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4009:i60kv1.3.1
>
> 2)   OK - so we were told that the TRUST had taken care of this I 
> thought. But it clearly has not been - so then let me also ask why was 
> this not handled years ago by the Secretariat's office.
>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Richard M Stallman | 28 Feb 19:08
Picon
Picon

Re: Call for volunteers to discuss IETF patent policy with Richard Stallman

I cannot post anything in a group whose name uses the term
"intellectual property" without saying first that I think it is a
mistake to make any statement using that term.  It encourages
overgeneralization, and is too broad to be of use in meaningful
statements.  See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html for more
explanation.

The issue here concerns patents and only patents.  To use the term
"intellectual property" in discussing it would confuse the issue by
bringing in other disparate laws.

    It is unreasonable to ban all patents, since patents may be used 
    defensively in accordance with LPF principles and statements. It is also 
    possible that a patented technology might be so fundamental, that a 
    standard _must_ be approved no matter the cost.

A patented standard for software is worse than no standard, because it
functions to augment the patent holder's stranglehold over society.
What everyone ought to do is resist it.

As long as the IETF allows patented standards for software, anyone can
argue about any proposed patented standard that it important enough to
excuse the patent.  Others can argue that it is not, but since that is
a question of judgment, the conclusion is never inevitable.  So the
risk is always broader than it might appear.

I am looking for people who would like to join in trying to change
this policy.  I'll discuss it further with those who are interested.
Permalink | Reply | 8 comments |
headers
TSG | 28 Feb 20:02
Picon
Favicon

Re: Call for volunteers to discuss IETF patent policy with Richard Stallman

Richard M Stallman wrote:
> I cannot post anything in a group whose name uses the term
> "intellectual property" without saying first that I think it is a
> mistake to make any statement using that term.  

> It encourages
> overgeneralization, and is too broad to be of use in meaningful
> statements.  
No, its supposed to be a catchall "for processes which define issues of 
intellectual property law which would impact a open collaboration 
process for developing technology standards pertaining to networking and 
the operations of the standards process"... one which by the way relies 
on corporate and academic sponsorship.
> See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html for more
> explanation.
>
> The issue here concerns patents and only patents.  
Patents are a part of the Intellectual Property Framework that enables 
the Trade Agreements between the populace of this planet so what you are 
talking about is a process that intentionally ignores or creates a 
process to subvert the rule of law.
> To use the term
> "intellectual property" in discussing it would confuse the issue by
> bringing in other disparate laws.
>
>     It is unreasonable to ban all patents, since patents may be used 
>     defensively in accordance with LPF principles and statements. It is also 
>     possible that a patented technology might be so fundamental, that a 
>     standard _must_ be approved no matter the cost.
>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |

Gmane