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

["Remo Tabanelli" <[e-mail]>]

On Mar, 15 Settembre 2009 7:53 pm, Bill Russell wrote:
> Hi Todd & Remo,
>
> 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:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2009 1:07 PM
> To: Todd Glassey
> Cc: Bill Russell; [e-mail]
> 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
>
>
>
>