Ted
please dont take this retort personally - I respect your
work and that of
the IETF as a whole but you in a single phrase has
illuminated the entire
problem with the IPR-WG - that being "should they feel
they feel they need
them" - which underlines the pure arrogance of this
management team. It has
decided that it and it alone will make decisions of law and
process and that
is ridiculous.
This WG needs real professional legal help that is paid
specifically to
develop a set of licenses to accomplish this need and to do
so within the
framework that the IETF operates by, or to formally tell
this IETF WG and
its chair that the type of thing it wants to accomplish, is
not possible
with the current framework which is more the reality that no
one wants to
face I bet...
If you doubt me Ted, call the GC's office at QualComm and
ask them what they
do in for form of IP releases and diligence on acquiring a
new technology.
If your paying sponsor wont use the system the IETF's
erecting then what do
you think this says?
Simple key questions -
0) What does your sponsor do when they acquire IP? - and
if it is
OpenSource'd are there other things they do like buy paid
copies? - the
problem between real-world IP transfers and those that
happen through the
anonymous posting instance of the IETF is that all the
parties know each
other or the matter is handled through some formal
intermediary that IS
ACCOUNTABLE for all the issues of the IP RIGHTS and that.
Hell Real-Estate has been sold like this for hundreds of
years - ever hear
of a title search? Nothing the IETF does is like any other
IP process, and
unlike the OpenSource community there is not the ongoing
relationship
between the developers and the users of the technology here,
so the IETF
cannot claim to be anything like an OpenSource distributor
of commercial
technologies. It is a 'dealer in IP from unknown origins and
of unknown
rights' no matter what some stupid Email Form says.
1) Would ANY of the lawyers who populate this list EVER
write a IP
transfer contract like the IETF's - My bet is professionally
speaking that
while Larry, Mssr Barr, and Counsel Jorge have specific
goals here, and that
through those goals, not one of them is silly enough to risk
their
credential or their firms name on a 'commercial-IP
assignment or conveyance'
process that is as flimsy as this one - or as poorly put
together...
2) If those lawyers wont formally come out and state for
the record that
the IETF's processes are stable and legally defensible if
there is an IP
issue, then why are we continuing to proceed down this
rathole? Again this
feeds back to the commentary "if they feel they need
them"...
This previous question's answer alone should have stopped
this process dead
in its tracks... but since we as Engineer's know better -
lets continue
asking the simple questions as to how our sponsor's do
business today.
------------
3) In any process or reasonable use license, there is a
damages or
liquidated damages clause, and no such clause appears in any
IETF document -
they all claim Use At Your Own Risk, but I got news for this
group, the
failure of the IETF to properly identify a submitter is
likely 'really going
to annoy' the property's real owner and as such, there may
be a tie-in now
in the US to the Bush Amendment's to the Violence Against
Women/DOJ
recharging act that went into US law - this is why an IP
attorney needs to
look at the entire process now.
4) In ALL instances the IETF MUST maintain control on
the IP submitted
to it, so that getting a court order prohibiting the use of
the materials is
not necessary against the Officers and Operating Management
of the IETF
itself. This is a purely stupid and arrogant oversight that
the IETF has
been hiding behind for years - but its time it came out of
the closet and
claimed to be what it is, the Publisher's of the IP
submitted through the
IETF's Editors... Either way if there is a problem with a
proper conveyance
IT MUST be capable of being recalled or terminated.
Otherwise the ONLY
POSSIBLE SOLUTION is litigation for injunctive relief and
the associated
damages against the IETF and its officers -
Todd Glassey, Frustrated participant.
--- Original Message -----
From: "Ted Hardie" <hardie qualcomm.com>
To: "Simon Josefsson" <jasextundo.com>
Cc: <ipr-wgietf.org>
Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 11:33 AM
Subject: Re: Flawed license in document...
> At 11:28 AM +0100 2/8/06, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> >
> >Right, Ted, and I don't dispute that. I don't
intend to be rude, but
> >I doubted that the authors knew exactly what the
license they had
> >chosen would imply in practice. The authors are
presumably not
> >lawyers.
>
> I know them both, and I am happy to report that they
are very productive
> engineers. They presumably have access to lawyers,
should
> they feel they need them.
>
>
> >The license text they had chosen was in direct
conflict with
> >the explicit goal of providing "open source
code". That support my
> >doubt. Their willingness to modify the license
also support my doubt.
>
> It is not in direct conflict with the explicit goal of
providing open
> source code. The document provides example source code
for examination
and
> potentially for incorporation under a license that
many, many
> people and organizations would find appropriate. It
does not do
> so for all licenses.
>
> I am not a lawyer either, but I don't believe Tony's
proposed change:
>
> Royalty free license to copy and use this software
is granted,
> provided that redistributed derivative works do not
contain
> misleading author or version information.
>
> carries the same meaning as the original, as it does
not require the
> derivative works to carry the same restriction. Since
a copy-of-a-copy
> is pretty easy to arrange, without that you are at full
freedom
> to remove this restriction in one generation. And it
is the imposition
> of this restriction which would run you into problems
with the
advertisment
> clause's conflict with the GPL.
>
> Whether Tony and Don choose to lose that in a single
generation or not,
> we have to expect that some contributors to the IETF
would want the
> restriction to be inherited. Otherwise we are back at
the "fork" problem
> very, very quickly.
> Ted
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ipr-wg mailing list
> Ipr-wgietf.org
> https:/
/www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg
_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wgietf.org
https:/
/www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg
|