Re: [TLS] [Ietf-honest] Last Call: draft-ietf-tls-extractor (Keying

Dean Anderson <dean@av8.com> Wed, 02 December 2009 23:02 UTC

Return-Path: <dean@av8.com>
X-Original-To: tls@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tls@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 438693A697E for <tls@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Dec 2009 15:02:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.495
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.495 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.104, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 XQszc39ASU+w for <tls@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Dec 2009 15:02:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cirrus.av8.net (cirrus.av8.net [130.105.36.66]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37B9B3A692B for <tls@ietf.org>; Wed, 2 Dec 2009 15:02:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from citation2.av8.net (citation2.av8.net [130.105.12.10]) (authenticated bits=0) by cirrus.av8.net (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id nB2N1v69012648 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO); Wed, 2 Dec 2009 18:01:57 -0500
Date: Wed, 02 Dec 2009 18:01:57 -0500
From: Dean Anderson <dean@av8.com>
X-X-Sender: dean@citation2.av8.net
To: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
In-Reply-To: <4B15D9D2.3010107@stpeter.im>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0912021738170.24267-100000@citation2.av8.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"
Cc: Todd Glassey <tglassey@earthlink.net>, ietf-honest@lists.iadl.org, rms@gnu.org, tls@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [TLS] [Ietf-honest] Last Call: draft-ietf-tls-extractor (Keying
X-BeenThere: tls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "This is the mailing list for the Transport Layer Security working group of the IETF." <tls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls>, <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls>
List-Post: <mailto:tls@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls>, <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 Dec 2009 23:02:11 -0000

On Tue, 1 Dec 2009, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:

> On 11/30/09 9:09 PM, Richard Stallman wrote:
> >     Dan - the IPR notice is a statement of the ownership of the IP
> > 
> > It is a bad practice to use the term "intellectual property" to talk
> > about anything, because that term is harmfully broad.  No matter which
> > law is the real topic, confusing it with other laws is not good.
> > 
> > These issues concern patents and only patents.  (Copyrights and
> > trademarks could not raise issues like these.)  So we can avoid
> > spreading confusion by speaking of "notices about patents" and
> > "ownership of the patents", and avoiding the term "IP".
> > 
> > It's easy to do, so how about it?
> 
> Agreed, the term "intellectual property" is only bound to lead to
> muddled thinking.

One reason for the muddled thinking is that there is no _PROPERTY_ in
any of patents, copyrights, trademarks, or trade secrets.  Property is a
right that time-UNLimited and transferable. Property can be tangible or
intangible.  In contrast, patents and copyrights are time-Limited; Even
though they are transferable, they are not property.  Patents and
copyrights are more like a transferrable lease: A temporary asset, not a
permanent asset. Trademarks are time-unlimited but can't be sold without
the underlying products and services.  Trademarks serve to prevent a
kind of fraud on the purchaser of products and services.  Trade Secrets
are also time-unlimited, but serve to prevent a kind of fraud on
improperly obtaining information from the secret holder.  But if someone
independently discovers the secret, the trade secret holder has no right
to the knowledge.

Embodied in the term 'intellectual property' is an implicit agenda to
make patents and copyrights time-UNLimited.  Its a good term if that's
your agenda. Otherwise, its a bad term.

I kind of agree we need an overly broad term to help with disclosure,
but it should be something other than "intellectual property".  
Suggestions on alternative terms are appreciated.

		--Dean

-- 
Av8 Internet   Prepared to pay a premium for better service?
www.av8.net         faster, more reliable, better service
617 256 5494