Comments to WG meeting

Ouch - please, can we keep the copyright discussion limited
to copyright
and not get involved in patents.  I hope Larry's discussion
of patent
licensure also applies to copyright licensure, but IANAL. 
Nobody is
(AFAIK) proposing the language discussed below for patent
licensing.

Thanks,
--David
----------------------------------------------------
David L. Black, Senior Technologist
EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA  01748
+1 (508) 293-7953             FAX: +1 (508) 293-7786
black_davidemc.com        Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754
----------------------------------------------------

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lawrence Rosen [mailto:lrosenrosenlaw.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2006 6:33 PM
> To: ipr-wgietf.org
> Subject: RE: Comments to WG meeting
> 
> Bebe McCall wrote:
> > A fallback position is to restrict the allowable
modification of
> > published code to implementations of the
specification, and encourage
> > submitters to explicitly permit broader use of
their work wherever
> > possible.  Clearly this is less desirable, but in
my very limited
> > experience it has seemed less likely to antagonize
corporate patent
> > attorneys and improves the chances you'll get
cooperation with open
> > source reference implementations.
> 
> There's a small trap in the wording here. A patent
license *restricted to
> implementations of the specification* is not quite the
same as a license
*to
> patent claims necessary to practice a specification*.
> 
> The first alternative (depending upon how worded) may
prohibit the
creation
> of derivative works or, phrased even more tragically,
prohibit people from
> improving upon an earlier specification when the world
changes. This is
> incompatible with any open source license.
> 
> The second alternative leaves it for the future to
worry about the need
for
> patent claims beyond the specific claims necessary to
practice the
original
> specification. There are no restrictions or limitations
on the creation of
> derivative works other than what due diligence and
proper software
> development procedures would suggest at the time.
Meanwhile, patent owners
> can craft their claims to capture applications external
to the
> specification--as can anyone else--in a spirit of
inventiveness that the
> patent system and industry standards are supposed to
encourage.
> 
> This allows for compromise between those patent owners
who want to
encourage
> a specific standard and those patent users who demand
freedom to create
> derivative works. The future effects of other patent
claims are left for
the
> future to determine as software evolves. 
> 
> /Larry
> 
> Lawrence Rosen
> Rosenlaw & Einschlag, a technology law firm
(www.rosenlaw.com)
> Stanford University, Lecturer in Law
> 3001 King Ranch Road, Ukiah, CA 95482
> 707-485-1242  *  fax: 707-485-1243
> Author of "Open Source Licensing: Software
Freedom and 
>                 Intellectual Property Law"
(Prentice Hall 2004)
> 

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