Re: Status of this memo

["Joel M. Halpern" <[e-mail]>]

If the pen holder wants to take their original text, and apply any 
changes they personally have made to the document, I think they can do that.

If the original authors want to write another I-D that uses the words 
from the WG, they probably can, as the note well from everyone else 
grants the rights to use the words in IETF work.

But if the original author wants to take his work somewhere else, and 
make derivative works, he better get rid of all the words from IETF 
contributors.

Heck, any author can create an I-D using any words from any I-Ds or 
RFCs, as long as what they are doing is contributing it to the IETF. 
But they can't just  use those words elsewhere.

And the original author does not have any special authority to tell the 
WG what words it will work with.

I do not know of any reason for the WG to change the name of a WG 
adopted draft just because they make some content changes (with or 
without the original author's agreement.  If someone does not like what 
the WG does with their document, they can ask to have their name removed 
(and people have done so).   The WG can change the name (and does if the 
content changes far enough that they want to talk about it as a 
different thing.)  But that is up to the WG, not copyright law or moral 
right.

And in terms of IETF rights, this goes back quite a number of years.

Yours,
Joel

On 4/27/2021 7:14 PM, Keith Moore wrote:
> On 4/27/21 7:12 PM, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
> 
>> Keith, I have to fundamentally disagree with you.
>> Once the WG adopts the document, the WG owns it, and the document pen 
>> holder (original author or otherwise) is expected to work according to 
>> the direciton of the WG.
> 
> That's not how I read BCP78, and I'm not aware of any other instrument 
> by which the document's original authors give up their right to create 
> derivative works.
> 
>> The pen holder retains their rights in their original contribution. 
>> But in fact, once it is incorporating text from the WG, it belongs to 
>> the WG.
> 
> Emphatically disagree.  I believe this to be an entirely false statement.
> 
> Keith
>