Re: [ltans] "Proof Source Provider" - new term for use in describing trust chains in document hierarchies

Todd Glassey <tglassey@earthlink.net> Tue, 15 September 2009 22:02 UTC

Return-Path: <tglassey@earthlink.net>
X-Original-To: ltans@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ltans@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 043E33A6918 for <ltans@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Sep 2009 15:02:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.507
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.507 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.939, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, J_CHICKENPOX_12=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id THDeqTsAXHR8 for <ltans@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Sep 2009 15:02:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from balder-227.proper.com (Balder-227.Proper.COM [192.245.12.227]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B5BC3A6C05 for <ltans@ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Sep 2009 15:02:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from elasmtp-scoter.atl.sa.earthlink.net (elasmtp-scoter.atl.sa.earthlink.net [209.86.89.67]) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id n8FLp1Wf031819 for <ietf-ltans@imc.org>; Tue, 15 Sep 2009 14:51:07 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from tglassey@earthlink.net)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; d=earthlink.net; b=RL9LSa43jtQSbCdqdKubhsroURq3jMuyt/48K21i4no/UgCbkHrMnVwF8t6lD8px; h=Received:Message-ID:Date:From:User-Agent:MIME-Version:To:CC:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP;
Received: from [38.104.134.74] (helo=[192.168.1.138]) by elasmtp-scoter.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from <tglassey@earthlink.net>) id 1MnfvQ-0007qV-Gz; Tue, 15 Sep 2009 17:51:00 -0400
Message-ID: <4AB00C42.9090608@earthlink.net>
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2009 14:50:58 -0700
From: Todd Glassey <tglassey@earthlink.net>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: remo@t-bizcom.com
References: <9DCCF5807745F9438462F1F6A66CADA403203A35D5@MAILR003.mail.lan> <4AAFBEF3.8060607@earthlink.net> <24910.93.41.185.139.1253034396.squirrel@ns2.t-bizcom.com> <9DCCF5807745F9438462F1F6A66CADA403202E158F@MAILR003.mail.lan> <25507.93.41.185.139.1253041674.squirrel@ns2.t-bizcom.com> <4AAFEF5C.6070604@earthlink.net> <25891.93.41.185.139.1253047821.squirrel@ns2.t-bizcom.com>
In-Reply-To: <25891.93.41.185.139.1253047821.squirrel@ns2.t-bizcom.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-ELNK-Trace: 01b7a7e171bdf5911aa676d7e74259b7b3291a7d08dfec79b19b6614bb2314ffa4107cbfd4bd2857350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c
X-Originating-IP: 38.104.134.74
Cc: "ietf-ltans@imc.org" <ietf-ltans@imc.org>
Subject: Re: [ltans] "Proof Source Provider" - new term for use in describing trust chains in document hierarchies
X-BeenThere: ltans@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: LTANS Working Group <ltans.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltans>, <mailto:ltans-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ltans>
List-Post: <mailto:ltans@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ltans-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltans>, <mailto:ltans-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2009 22:02:55 -0000

Remo Tabanelli wrote:
> On Mar, 15 Settembre 2009 9:47 pm, Todd Glassey wrote:
>   
>> Remo Tabanelli wrote:
>>     
>>> On Mar, 15 Settembre 2009 7:53 pm, Bill Russell wrote:
>>>
>>>       
>>>> Hi Todd & Remo,
>>>>
>>>>         
>> Remo
>> having personally taken a matter to the US Supreme Court (case
>> #08-01088) , it aint anywhere as easy as we think it should be.  And to
>> reinforce this, I am saying a 100 Page publication for the Supreme Court
>> will cost about $10K to publish including the $40/Page typesetting fees
>> for the final copy and the building of the various Tables at $100 a page
>> or more for the typesetting alone. The figure in the binding cost  and
>> cost of submit to the Court ($300 + courier fees), and since I speak
>> from first hand experience arguing this is pointless.
>>
>> That aside, the IETF relies on its research exemption under section 107
>> of the DCMA to allow it to talk about anything it likes - and that's the
>> problem here since the users of the IETF standards are not legally
>> allowed to use that code or IP in the real world just because the IETF
>> told them they could reprint the standards-effort paperwork and content.
>>
>> It's one of the flaws in the logic the IETF puts forward. The IETF's
>> license is not about anything other than the publication for the
>> standards process and whether the people using those to implement code
>> or not realize it the IETF cannot provide a right-to-use status on
>> copyrighted work they dont own no matter what. Representing that they
>> would or could do so may also be a criminal act of electronic fraud in
>> this case in my opinion.
>>     
>
> No Todd!
> Let me say (friendly) that the flaw is in your side not on the IETF side!
>   
No Remo its not. The flaw here is in  your argument. You clearly also 
want to argue about this and I don't - I made the offer to the IETF to 
help clean things up but I honestly would rather not waste timing 
arguing with your opinion.

So as I said last time consider the offer withdrawn.

Todd Glassey
> Your flaw is argue that a single phrase in *plain language* or term is a
> or can be a copyrigthed work "in se"!
>
> 1) As matter of fact you can made a "copyrigthed mark" with a common word
> or phrase but this unaffect my freedom or right of using the term (or the
> freedom of anyone in this world) except the fact that I cannot made a
> product or a company with this name.
>
> 2) As matter of fact you can have used a term or phrase in copyrigthted
> document or work or implementation but this unaffect my freedom to use the
> same term in any other *different* (and... why not...also copyrighted
> work).
>
> The word "copy" before "right" have a "magic" sense here.
>
> To be in "violation" I must not only use a single phrase or word.
> I must "copy" significant parts of the context of the entire work and
> apply it at the same case or implementation.
> If *any* of these conditions does not match there is no violation!
>
> That's the law my friend and international agreements have made and
> produced similar criteria and laws in my country in your contry and so
> on....
>
> And (I repeat to be clear) I will challenge any allegation in any court,
> in any country of this world about the sole use of the the term " Proof
> Source Provider" or similar.
>
> I and any other person in this world will be free (despite the fact that
> the term is used or not used in a copyrigthed work) to use the term 
> "Proof Source Provider" and even to use it in another copyrigthed work!
>
> But I want no more discuss this topic because i feel that I'm annoyng the
> other folks in the WG
>
> In short if you are cool with your opininion I am cool too with mine :)
>
> Remo Tabanelli
>
> P.S. I have also (me too) a first hand experience here on an Italian court
> about the usability of the term "PKI Infrastructure"... (litteraly from
> Italian language to English).
> Someone (in Italy) was (in a very past time) attempting to affirm/claim a
> copyrigth on this!
>
>   
>> So in bringing that term fully inside the IETF as a NoteWell
>> work-product I was trying to make that pain go away... But hey I get
>> your concern so if the IETF isnt worried about that  I totally
>> understand and we can just withdraw the offer.
>>
>> Have a great day,
>> Todd Glassey
>>     
>>>> If the term Proof is in fact copyrighted, I would guess that any legal
>>>> rights were lost long ago by failing to enforce it properly, as it is
>>>> used
>>>> by multiple companies and with multiple products. That notwithstanding,
>>>> the emphasis of my email was not on copyrighted terminology, but rather
>>>> on
>>>> the fact that the term might be confused in usage. Carl's comment is
>>>> perhaps the more important though, does this topic even warrant
>>>> discussion
>>>> as part of this group? I apologize for any confusion I may have
>>>> introduced
>>>> by my email, as I was merely trying to suggest that the term is
>>>> overloaded. I think your email continues to make the point that it is
>>>> in
>>>> fact not the best for this group to incorporate.
>>>>
>>>> Take care,
>>>> Bill
>>>>
>>>>         
>>> Bill I fully understand your warning and (at least in part) I agree with
>>> you... but this is not what I am worried about.
>>>
>>> I have not expressed an opinion about the fact that  using the term
>>> proposed by Todd is appropriate or not.
>>>
>>> My opinion was simply about the fact that we (the WG) can or cannot use
>>> the proposed term!
>>> And clearly I have a very firm opinion about the fact that we can use it
>>> and... let me reinforce te concept... IMHO if we want (if we, all the
>>> folks here, agree on it) we can use *any* term we like!
>>> Disregarding totally the **miserable** "topic" about the pretended
>>> "copyrighted" term.
>>>
>>> "Proof" you said?...
>>>
>>> In the real life be sure that I will challenge in any court any
>>> allegation
>>> (to me or any of my interest) about the use of a single english word (or
>>> any language) or common phrase/term like "Proof".... if you (or any
>>> other)
>>> pretend the exclusive use of the term (without the entire document or
>>> context of the *really copyrigthed work*) ...
>>>
>>> I will ack on any copyrigthed work but not (repeat not) on any
>>> "decontestualized" term or word included in the copyrigthed work!
>>>
>>> Pretending the exclusive use of a term or single phrase (without a
>>> contex
>>> or case specification) is absurd in any *legal system* of this (real)
>>> world!
>>> This is *not legal* and not fair!
>>> And.. yes... maybe I'm wrong but I'm pretty sure that (in the case) I
>>> will
>>> be the winner!
>>>
>>> Just to explain are you sustaining that because I can read (in many RFC)
>>> the following:
>>> "Copyright (C) The Internet Society (xxxx)"
>>> And, in the same document, terms like "Must" "shall" "Must be" etc.. I
>>> cannot freely use it (the same terms in any different document) as I
>>> want?
>>>
>>> As example I can use the term "windows" as I want and where I want.
>>>
>>> I only must take care of it only (and only if) I talk about a specific
>>> O.S. or Product(s).
>>>
>>> And last (but not least) are we a IETF WG made solely of *individuals*
>>> or
>>> a lobby of employes of some corporation claiming some vague "wapor IP"
>>> on
>>> some product/document/implementation?
>>>
>>> This is what made me sad!
>>>
>>> Remo Tabanelli
>>>
>>>
>>>       
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Remo Tabanelli [mailto:remo@t-bizcom.com]
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2009 1:07 PM
>>>> To: Todd Glassey
>>>> Cc: Bill Russell; ietf-ltans@imc.org
>>>> Subject: Re: [ltans] "Proof Source Provider" - new term for use in
>>>> describing trust chains in document hierarchies
>>>>
>>>> On Mar, 15 Settembre 2009 6:21 pm, Todd Glassey wrote:
>>>>
>>>>         
>>>>> Bill Russell wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>           
>>>>>> We (Pericore) already use that term to express digitally signed
>>>>>> authorizations.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>             
>>>>> Bummer - its copyrighted and not currently under any license.
>>>>>
>>>>>           
>>>>>>  Also, Corestreet uses that term in one of their products. I think
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> term is overloaded and should not be used as you propose.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>             
>>>>> The term was used by me officially in print 10 years ago and it was
>>>>> (c)'d on those works... your general counsel may get a kick out of
>>>>> that
>>>>> and I can provide those documents to anyone that wants them.
>>>>>
>>>>>           
>>>> Bill & Todd
>>>>
>>>> Until now... and for more than two years I was silent on this list.
>>>> and... today I'm very sad.
>>>>
>>>> IMHO a discussion in a IETF WG about copyrighted terms (or any other
>>>> so
>>>> called I.P. "wapor issue") is misplaced here.
>>>>
>>>> I'm not interested in hearing from anyone of us who was the first that
>>>> used a plain english expression like "Proof Source Provider" because
>>>> the
>>>> first source of these terms is the common language... and I suppose you
>>>> can find anyone of these word on a common dictionary!
>>>>
>>>> IMHO a phrase (in any language) is (or must be) without a specific and
>>>> *explained contest* uncopyrightable.
>>>> I'ts not realistic pretend to have a copyright on a term (or phrase)
>>>> without the accluded (and this can be eventually copyrigthed not the
>>>> single term or phrase) document/work.
>>>>
>>>> So if the WG think that using this terms is useful (IMHO) can decide to
>>>> use it, if not we will not use it.
>>>>
>>>> Simply as that.
>>>>
>>>> Tank you all folks!
>>>>
>>>> Remo Tabanelli
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>         
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>
>>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>>> Version: 8.5.409 / Virus Database: 270.13.99/2372 - Release Date:
>>> 09/15/09 05:59:00
>>>
>>>
>>>       
>
>   
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
> Version: 8.5.409 / Virus Database: 270.13.99/2372 - Release Date: 09/15/09 05:59:00
>
>