Ted Hardie wrote:
> Characterizing the decision of volunteers to release
only the *necessary*
> rights for the standards as petulance certainly helps
establish that you
> aren't working for consensus.
1) I characterize the right to modify as a *necessary* right
for open
source. What efforts are you making to achieve consensus
with this essential
aspect of open source development?
2) You have *still* not given any intelligible reason why
copyrighted works
that are publicly contributed to IETF need to be restricted
from
modification. What aspect of Qualcomm's copyrighted works
do you seek to
protect that could possibly justify burdening each working
group to separate
"text" from "code" in IETF
specifications?
/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)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ted Hardie [mailto:hardie qualcomm.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2006 8:16 AM
> To: lrosenrosenlaw.com; 'Harald Alvestrand'
> Cc: ipr-wgietf.org
> Subject: RE: #1175 Code vs text - second attempt at
resolution
>
> At 1:27 AM -0700 6/6/06, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
> >I'm sorry, Harald, but I cannot be motivated to
seek consensus on such an
> >important point with people who base their position
on a "principle of
> >parsimony." [1] What possible justification
is there to withhold
> copyright
> >permissions that some of us feel are necessary
based on a consensus to
> allow
> >stinginess?
>
> That was answered in my previous note, which references
parsimony in its
> scientific meaning:
>
> 2: economy in the use of means to an end;
(Merriam-Webster Online
> Dictionary) .
>
> >I've listened closely to this discussion and tried
to understand why some
> >companies refuse to release for public benefit and
free use otherwise
> public
> >writings that they contribute toward the
achievement of an industry
> >standard. Their petulance isn't the basis for a
well-reasoned policy, and
> I
> >for one cannot see how we can reach consensus
around such an
> intellectually
> >shallow position.
>
> Characterizing the decision of volunteers to release
only the *necessary*
> rights
> for the standards as petulance certainly helps
establish that you aren't
> working
> for consensus.
> Ted Hardie
_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wgietf.org
https:/
/www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg
|