the software/data to someone else
to use.
--Dean
-- Forwarded message --
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 00:09:57 -0500 (EST)
From: Dean Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Harald Tveit Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Legal review results 1: Intellectual
.
-Original Message-
From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2005 9:34 AM
To: Harald Tveit Alvestrand
Cc: ietf@ietf.org; Contreras, Jorge
Subject: Re: Legal review results 1: Intellectual property
Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
(explicit CC to Jorge, since I'm
E Carpenter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2005 9:34 AM
To: Harald Tveit Alvestrand
Cc: ietf@ietf.org; Contreras, Jorge
Subject: Re: Legal review results 1: Intellectual property
Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
(explicit CC to Jorge, since I'm interpreting his words
: Wednesday, January 26, 2005 14:49
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: RE: Legal review results 1: Intellectual property (fwd)
This doesn't seem to have made it to the list...
-- Forwarded Message --
Date: mandag, januar 24, 2005 15:53:48 -0500
From: Contreras, Jorge [EMAIL
to someone else
to use.
--Dean
-- Forwarded message --
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 00:09:57 -0500 (EST)
From: Dean Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Harald Tveit Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Legal review results 1: Intellectual property
One problem
--
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 00:09:57 -0500 (EST)
From: Dean Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Harald Tveit Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Legal review results 1: Intellectual property
One problem:
One can have full control over the software source code copyright
I brought up the issue of sublicensing. Perhaps I missed discussion
in the flood of messages. Assuming I didn't, let me try and prod people?
Do people believe the issue of sublicensing is not worth discussing or
are we all just unsure what to say about it?
--Sam
At 6:23 PM -0500 1/26/05, Sam Hartman wrote:
I brought up the issue of sublicensing. Perhaps I missed discussion
in the flood of messages. Assuming I didn't, let me try and prod people?
Do people believe the issue of sublicensing is not worth discussing or
are we all just unsure what to say
Ted == Ted Hardie [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ted At 6:23 PM -0500 1/26/05, Sam Hartman wrote:
I brought up the issue of sublicensing. Perhaps I missed
discussion in the flood of messages. Assuming I didn't, let me
try and prod people?
Do people believe the issue of
Passed the question to Jorge.
If the IAD shall ensure that such contract grants to ISOC the perpetual,
irrevocable right, on behalf of IASA and IETF, to use, display, distribute,
reproduce, modify and create derivatives of such Data. doesn't cover
sublicensing (as in letting others use to our
(explicit CC to Jorge, since I'm interpreting his words)
--On fredag, januar 21, 2005 10:49:21 -0500 Bruce Lilly [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Verbosity aside, I don't believe that sole control and custodianship
applies to open source software. I am not a lawyer, but the Old text
seems not only more
Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
(explicit CC to Jorge, since I'm interpreting his words)
--On fredag, januar 21, 2005 10:49:21 -0500 Bruce Lilly
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Verbosity aside, I don't believe that sole control and custodianship
applies to open source software. I am not a lawyer, but
Date: 2005-01-24 08:12
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: ietf@ietf.org
CC: Jorge Contreras [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(explicit CC to Jorge, since I'm interpreting his words)
On reading the text again, I think this text:
(B) If an IASA Contract provides for the creation,
One problem:
One can have full control over the software source code copyright but not
over the patents that cover use of the software. If you don't have a
patent license, you can't use patented software.
The text should be modified to include specifications that one is given
control over
I'm still concerned with not having the ability to sublicense rights
we have under this section.
The last time I discussed this issue Harald pointed out that I was
asking for more rights than we had under 3667.
However I have sense been convinced that 3667 is broken.
In this and a few later messages, I'm relaying comments from Jorge
Contreras, the IETF's pro bono legal counsel.
1. Intellectual Property. I think I understand the reason for including
an explicit requirement that IP created in
Date: 2005-01-21 09:40
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In this and a few later messages, I'm relaying comments from Jorge
Contreras, the IETF's pro bono legal counsel.
1. Intellectual Property. I think I
Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
...
My biggest problem with this is size..
I think in the case of text resulting from legal review, that
is not something we should worry about.
Brian
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
On 1/21/2005 10:49, Bruce Lilly allegedly wrote:
Verbosity aside, I don't believe that sole control and custodianship
applies to open source software. I am not a lawyer, but the Old text
seems not only more easily comprehended [I am reminded of Jonathan
Swift's satirical look at lawyers in
On Friday, January 21, 2005 15:40:31 +0100 Harald Tveit Alvestrand
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ISOC will permit IASA and its designee(s) to have sole control and
custodianship of such Developed Software, and ISOC
will not utilize or access such Developed Software in
connection with any ISOC
20 matches
Mail list logo
