Re: Interoperability of TIFF FX

Since this rather frustrating topic is now being imposed on the mailing 
list, let us at least try to get the factual matters clear...


At 04:28 PM 9/25/2001, Scott Foshee wrote:
>It is clearly stated that Adobe's 9/97 license grant was the purpose of 
>Internet fax.

Scott,

Your interpretation of plain English differs from mine, markedly.  I do not 
claim to be an attorney, but plain English is pretty straightforward, and 
even attorneys are limited in their ability to change or invent meaning, 
after something has been written.

It appears that you are seeing a paragraph that gives some background, by 
citing the context of IETF motivation, and confusing it with the later, 
legal permissions contained in that note.


To be specific:

>Re: Referencing TIFF specifications from ISOC/IETF Standards
>
>Dear Mr. Heath,
>
>There has been a discussion of the use of the TIFF specification as the
>basis for the interchange of FAX data on the Internet.

So, the letter has now, correctly, cited the context in which discussions 
about TIFF have arisen.


>In conjunction with
>that work, Adobe Systems supports the use of and, hereby, grants you a
>license to use the  TIFF specification as the basis for an ISOC/IETF
>standard provided the following conditions are met:

The phrase "In conjunction with" does not state or imply limitations on 
use, other than the fact that "that work"  -- ie, the standardization 
effort -- be the context for TIFF standardization.  There is a long way 
between how something is standardized and how it is used.

To interpret this permission in the rather creative way you are suggesting, 
it would mean that no other IETF (or other) work could incorporate by 
reference the TIFF document that resulted from that work, and be 
legal.  Where is the language that imposes that constraint?

Attorneys are usually quite good at stating whatever restrictions they 
intend.  How is it that the restrictions you are claiming were not included 
explicitly and abundantly, in the usual style?

The paragraphs relevant to usage and conformance:

>3.      The name and text of the ISOC/IETF standard should make it clear
>that the ISOC/IETF standard is not a definition of TIFF but is, instead, a
>use of the particular TIFF  specification referenced. Adobe does not want
>to create confusion in the market with multiple, non-identical TIFF
>specifications.

This provides a rather specific point about usage, albeit concerning claims 
of authority.  It says nothing about fax, never mind restricting use to fax.

and:

>5.      Any file labeled as conforming to a particular version  of TIFF
>should be processable by a conforming processor of that version. (In the
>case of TIFF, processing of the Baseline TIFF requirements for the
>particular version is all that is required for conformance to TIFF.) If the
>files that conform to the ISOC/IETF standard are not processable by a
>conforming processor for the referenced version, then they should not be
>labeled with that version of TIFF or should be otherwise identified so that
>a conforming processor would not be confused.

The reference is to "a conforming processor" rather than "a conforming fax 
processor" or the like.

Again, no reference to fax at all.

d/


----------
Dave Crocker  <mailto:[email protected]>
Brandenburg InternetWorking  <http://www.brandenburg.com>
tel +1.408.246.8253;  fax +1.408.273.6464