Cullen Jennings wrote: > Larry, your email sounded dangerously close to suggesting that it > might be ok to break the copyright law because no one would object to > it. Is that what you are suggesting? Not at all. But every attorney is charged with an obligation to help others understand and interpret the law even if that interpretation differs from that of some other attorneys. Fifty years from now, after IETF is dissolved and most of us have passed away, I don't want the dead hand of copyright reaching out from the grave to prevent anyone from freely modifying TCP/IP to satisfy modern requirements. It may be that, because Congress further extends the copyright term, the Disney corporation will then still own and control the copyright in Mickey Mouse cartoons, but the notion that anyone owns and controls the functional underpinnings of technology by placing a copyright notice on it is simply unacceptable. That is a perversion of the law, not something that a copyright lawyer who supports open source, open content and open standards can countenance. I hope that the participants in IETF develop IPR policies that support the fundamental freedom to invent--and to describe in words--whatever functions we need for our world to progress. Best regards, /Larry > -----Original Message----- > From: Cullen Jennings [mailto:fluffy@xxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2008 10:24 PM > To: lrosen@xxxxxxxxxxxx > Cc: 'IETF discussion list' > Subject: Re: IPR Questions Raised by Sam Hartman at the IETF 73 Plenary > > > Larry, your email sounded dangerously close to suggesting that it > might be ok to break the copyright law because no one would object to > it. Is that what you are suggesting? > > > On Dec 17, 2008, at 5:56 PM, Lawrence Rosen wrote: > > > Dave Crocker wrote: > >> That was the culture. Law often > >> follows culture, since culture creates established practice. > > > > I hope you're right. > > > > May I ask: Is there anyone on this list who is asserting a current > > copyright > > interest in any IETF RFC--on your own behalf or on behalf of your > > company--that would encumber the freedom of any IETF participants to > > copy, > > create derivative works, and distribute that RFC in accordance with > > IETF > > culture? > > > > On what basis do you assert that current copyright interest in those > > RFCs? > > Have you registered that copyright? Is that copyright interest sole > > or joint > > with any other entity, including other contributors or the IETF Trust > > itself? > > > > I'm not interested to hear about hypothetical situations. I would > > like to > > know if there are any actual claims of copyright ownership that > > people here > > are even considering to assert against IETF's complete freedom to > > act and > > establish functional Internet standards. > > > > /Larry > > > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On > >> Behalf Of > >> Dave CROCKER > >> Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2008 3:34 PM > >> To: Brian E Carpenter > >> Cc: IETF discussion list > >> Subject: Re: IPR Questions Raised by Sam Hartman at the IETF 73 > >> Plenary > >> > >> > >> > >> Brian E Carpenter wrote: > >>> On 2008-12-18 11:32, Dave CROCKER wrote: > >>>> My assumption was that the IETF owned the work. Pure and simple. > >>> > >>> False. You never implicitly transferred ownership. > >> > >> > >> Yes I did. As I say, that was the culture. > >> > >> Scott didn't have to come to Erik or me and ask permission, and he > >> didn't > >> even > >> have to think about whether he was required to. That was the > >> culture. Law > >> often > >> follows culture, since culture creates established practice. > >> > >> I do realize that that was a long time ago and that we certainly > >> have many > >> participants holding different views. > >> > >> I was reviewing the history on the general belief that a crisis of > >> the > >> current > >> sort can often be aided by taking a fresh look at first principles. > >> > >> > >> > >> But since I've now had a number of public and private exchanges > >> with folk > >> who > >> have been diligent participants in this topic and since none has > >> seemed to > >> understand -- nevermind embrace -- the line of discussion I've > >> tried to > >> raise, > >> I'll go back to my observer status and let the folks who are > >> putting the > >> real > >> effort into this continue on. > >> > >> d/ > >> > >> > >> -- > >> > >> Dave Crocker > >> Brandenburg InternetWorking > >> bbiw.net > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Ietf mailing list > >> Ietf@xxxxxxxx > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Ietf mailing list > > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf