The Law... Definition of Derivative Claims...

The key issue is in not allowing people to interpret
anything including the staff of this WG - everything
***MUST*** be totally spelled out.

todd
 -------------- Original message ----------------------
From: "Lawrence Rosen" <lrosenrosenlaw.com>
> > > To the extent that copying an expressive
piece of code is necessary 
> > > for an implementation of a functional
protocol in a 
> > published standard 
> > > that we
> > > *intend* to be implemented, copyright can't
prevent the 
> > copying. This 
> > > is based on the "merger doctrine,"
as expressed in the 
> > section of the 
> > > Copyright Act that Harald previously
referenced. And when a 
> > change to 
> > > that code is required in order to achieve a
functional result, that 
> > > change can't be prevented based on an
exclusive right to 
> > create derivative works.
> > 
> > Interesting.  How much modifications are
permitted?  If what 
> > you say is true, it seems third parties already
have some 
> > leeway to argue that they have the right to
incorporate ASN.1 
> > schemas and make modifications to them, regardless
of the 
> > IETF outbound copying conditions.
> 
> I do not suggest that we live with implied rights based
on the merger
> doctrine. We should make our rules explicit. That way
your question ["How
> much modifications are permitted?"] won't have to
be analyzed by everyone
> who wants to implement our specifications.
> 
> My note was merely intended to suggest that Todd is
quite wrong when he
> asserts that the exclusive right of authors to create
derivative works
> automatically makes IETF specifications unavailable for
implementation and
> modification. 
> 
> /Larry
> 
> Lawrence Rosen
> Rosenlaw & Einschlag, technology law offices
(www.rosenlaw.com)
> Stanford University School of Law, 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)

>    [Available also at www.rosenlaw.com/oslbook.htm]
>  
>  
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Simon Josefsson [mailto:jasextundo.com] 
> > Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 12:52 AM
> > To: lrosenrosenlaw.com
> > Cc: ipr-wgietf.org
> > Subject: Re: The Law... Definition of Derivative
Claims...
> > 
> > "Lawrence Rosen" <lrosenrosenlaw.com> writes:
> > 
> > > To the extent that copying an expressive
piece of code is necessary 
> > > for an implementation of a functional
protocol in a 
> > published standard 
> > > that we
> > > *intend* to be implemented, copyright can't
prevent the 
> > copying. This 
> > > is based on the "merger doctrine,"
as expressed in the 
> > section of the 
> > > Copyright Act that Harald previously
referenced. And when a 
> > change to 
> > > that code is required in order to achieve a
functional result, that 
> > > change can't be prevented based on an
exclusive right to 
> > create derivative works.
> > 
> > Interesting.  How much modifications are
permitted?  If what 
> > you say is true, it seems third parties already
have some 
> > leeway to argue that they have the right to
incorporate ASN.1 
> > schemas and make modifications to them, regardless
of the 
> > IETF outbound copying conditions.
> > 
> > Making those rights clear is still useful, of
course, because 
> > it will educate IETF participants how their
documents will 
> > likely be used.
> > 
> > Regards,
> > Simon
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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