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

[Todd Glassey <[e-mail]>]

Bill Russell wrote:
> Hi Todd & Remo,
>
> If the term Proof is in fact copyrighted, 
yep...
> I would guess that any legal rights were lost long ago by failing to enforce it properly, 
Since the entity who copywrite'd it is involved in litigation the rights 
are not clear from my perspective - but hey that's a different story. I 
was intending to surrender my rights on it and make it IETF property 
(scary thought that eh?) but if you folks want to push back against that 
I will withdraw the offer.
> 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. 
OK - how so? My intent is to get a CMS type solution based on this 
technology into production here in the US.
> Carl's comment is perhaps the more important though, does this topic even warrant discussion as part of this group? 
That's specifically what I was trying to figure out. If LTANS doesnt 
want it I am totally cool with that.
> 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. 
>   
Me as well !

Todd
> Take care,
> Bill
>
> -----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
>
>
>   
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> 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
>
>