Re: Protecting Copyright.

["Scott O. Bradner" <[e-mail]>]

John is correct that the courtesy is not required but acknowledgement of all contributors, in this case,
the author of the original document, must be acknowledged under the requirements in BCP 78

Scott
 

> On Apr 28, 2020, at 2:53 PM, John C Klensin <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> --On Tuesday, April 28, 2020 13:09 -0500 Pete Resnick
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>> On 28 Apr 2020, at 12:42, Khaled Omar wrote:
>> 
>>> Is this means that anyone can use the contents of the IDs
>>> stored at  the ietf repository !!!!
>> 
>> Anyone who is contributing their work to the standards process
>> can include derivative works of other items contributed to the
>> standards process (caveat the information below).
>> 
>>> So what is the copyright text included at the beginning and
>>> the end of  each ID !!!!
>> 
>> It specifically allows for derivative works. See BCP 78 (RFC
>> 5378) section 5.3.c
>> <https://tools.ietf.org/html/bcp78#section-5.3>. By including
>> that copyright statement (and not including any other
>> limitations), the author has granted the right to make those
>> derivative works.
>> 
>>> Does this includes applying what is included inside the ID
>>> without  contacting the draft authors ?!
>> 
>> Yes. An author is allowed to limit the right to make
>> derivative works (see section 6
>> <https://tools.ietf.org/html/bcp78#section-6>, but I do not
>> see this limitation in draft-omar-nep, which means you have
>> granted the right to make derivative works to the IETF Trust,
>> and the IETF Trust grants the right to include derivative
>> works in new contributions to the standards process to other
>> authors. There is no requirement for contacting the original
>> draft author.
> 
> The one thing that I'm surprised that Pete did not add is that,
> if something new and derivative actually draws inspiration (or
> text) from a previous document, it is generally considered
> courteous to discuss the idea with those responsible for that
> early document.  It is also a good idea from the standpoint of
> advancing the state of the art and any relevant standards work
> because comparing different ways of thinking about things often
> leads to better insights.  
> 
> However, as Pete points out, neither is a requirement.  Equally
> important, as Rob Wilton pointed out, if one were actually
> trying to protect the ideas, as distinct from how they are
> stated, you (or whomever was involved) would need one or more
> patents, not just claims of copyright on documents.  Whether
> your particular metric was patentable given that 1988 patent is
> a subject about which you should consult your favorite patent
> attorney or other expert because probably no one reading this
> list is competent to give you advice, much less free advice that
> you can trust, on that subject.  In addition, IANAL, but I've
> been told several times, privately and on IETF lists, that the
> patent laws of several countries prevent obtaining patents if
> public disclosure is made of the claimed invention prior to some
> point in the patent application process and that sharing ideas
> with an open standards body for consideration by that group is
> typically considered public disclosure.
> 
>   john
>