FYI - Legal Definition of a Derivative Work - per Copyright

--On tirsdag, januar 17, 2006 09:41:23 -0800 todd glassey 
<todd.glasseyworldnet.att.net> wrote:

> Steve asked for some legal precedent... here is some
background reading to
> do

Todd,

Steve asked for a legal precedent for your claim that a
second 
implementation of a protocol constitutes a derivative work -
in your words: 
"the IETF's
Standards Process MANDATES a second Interoperable Protocol
be built by one
of the parties involved in the Initiative... and without the
Derviative
Rights no one can legally claim that they have the right to
implement that
instance of that protocol".

Nothing you have produced so far gives any indication that
there's 
competent legal advice that this is the case.

Please - put up or shut up.

                     Harald

>
> The Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 101 defines a derivative
work as follows:
>
> ...a work based upon one or more preexisting works such
as a translation,
> musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization,
motion picture
> version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment,
condensation or
> any other form in which a work may be recast,
transformed, or adapted. A
> work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations,
elaborations, or
> other modifications which, as a whole, represent an
original work of
> authorship is a "derivative work.
>
> Also pay attention to something called FIRST SALE
DOCTERINE. Its a
> relevent factor as well.





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