[ntp:hackers] [ntpwg] NTPStamp - A new addition to the kit...
tglassey
tglassey at glassey.com
Wed Dec 2 00:40:02 UTC 2009
Danny Mayer wrote:
> Todd Glassey wrote:
>
>> Danny Mayer wrote:
>>
>>
Enough abuse Danny - we disagree and I think its better to just leave it
at that.
Todd Glassey
>>> You seem to be determined to make yourself look foolish. The reference
>>> implementation is not owned by IETF and even the protocol is not owned
>>> by the IETF. Quoting directly from RFC2026 (BCP9) Section 10.3.1 Item 1:
>>>
>>>
>> No Danny just point out how little you know about law.
>>
>
> The fact is, as you constantly prove, you not only no nothing about law
> but you cannot even read and understand correctly what is written.
>
>
>>> "However, to the extent that the submission is or may
>>> be subject to copyright, the contributor, the organization he
>>> represents (if any) and the owners of any proprietary rights in
>>> the contribution, grant an unlimited perpetual, non-exclusive,
>>> royalty-free, world-wide right and license to the ISOC and the
>>> IETF under any copyrights in the contribution.
>>>
>> Uh Danny ask any of the commercial entities here or the University IP
>> Acquisition houses whether they would rely on this assignment??? If you
>> get a YES then let me ask - who is the company and are they profitable
>> because no one in their right mind would accept IP under these terms.
>>
>>
>
> Who cares? Those are the terms, accept them or leave them.
>
>
>> Let me also ask how many really bad contracts sloppy technical people
>> have put in place exist? - let me tell you the number is HUGE.
>>
>
> Again who cares? It has nothing to do with the IETF rules and agreements.
>
>
>>> This license
>>> includes the right to copy, publish and distribute the
>>> contribution in any way, and to prepare derivative works that are
>>> based on or incorporate all or part of the contribution, the
>>> license to such derivative works to be of the same scope as the
>>> license of the original contribution."
>>>
>>> This does *NOT* say that IETF owns the copyright and in fact is says the
>>> opposite.
>>>
>> Yes it does now but it didn't back when NTP was originally submitted...
>> and that's the point.
>>
>
> Huh?
>
>
>>> This is laid out in more detail and/or clarification in
>>> RFC3978 (BCP78) which basically says the same thing. None of the
>>> documents (including BCP79 - RFC3979) make any ownership claim by the
>>> IETF over either the protocol or the implementation.
>>>
>> Sure they do - they make direct publication claims which impact patent
>> filing by the rightful IP owners...
>>
>>> The IETF only gets
>>> a perpetual license and copyright is retained by the submitter/author or
>>> organization claiming copyright.
>>>
>>>
>> yeah this is one of the other misnomers - its not a perpetual its a
>> "Shared Exclusive Right" to ... and that is the key issue here.
>>
>
> Well since the word "shared", never mind "shared exclusive right" does
> not appear anywhere in RFC2026, RFC3978 OR RFC3979 this is not relevant.
>
>
>> Contracts which fabricate relationships which cannot exist in law are
>> void so I suggest that you get the lawyers to really look over that
>> contract and the IETF operations documents because its way too late to
>> change anything now.
>>
>
> Well at least contract lawyers don't rely on your opinion since it's
> wrong every time. A contract *defines* a relationship between two or
> more parties so what is there to fabricate? You really need to talk to
> someone who knows something about law rather than making it up.
>
> Dave has asked you for your phone number so that he can have the IP
> lawyers at UDel talk to you. Have you done that?
>
> Danny
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 8.5.426 / Virus Database: 270.14.88/2537 - Release Date: 11/30/09 21:05:00
>
>
More information about the hackers
mailing list