Re: [ntpwg] Re: Reworded Algorithm Draft

Bill,

In the spirit of the TCP spec and the on-wire NTP spec I submitted 
previously, the only thing I think you need is a barebones summary of 
state variables and transition function. The algorithms need only a 
statement of input and output variables and flow diagram, which is not 
copyrighted by design. In other words, don't work too hard.

Dave

William Kasch wrote:
> Yaakov,
>  
> In light of your observations, some help rewording the draft from the 
> entire group is requested.  Furthermore, based on your recommendations, 
> I submit that we follow the following process for "rewording":
>  
> 1.  Completely remove all descriptive text that could be related back to 
> the book (essentially most of the verbiage in the document)
> 2.  Provide state machine and variables list only
> 3.  Reference the book heavily for more descriptive algorithm 
> documentation. 
>  
> There isn't any way around this if what you're saying is true.  I'd be 
> happy to take other suggestions if anyone has any, as well as integrate 
> any other rewording of the document that anyone else would like to 
> provide.  If not, I'm proceeding this way for the 02 revision. 
>  
> Thanks,
> Bill Kasch
> 
>  
> On 4/20/06, Yaakov Stein <yaakov_s@rad.com <mailto:yaakov_s@rad.com>> 
> wrote:
> 
>     Bill,
>      
>     I am cc'ing the list as I believe that my remarks may be of general
>     interest to the entire NTP WG.
>      
>     I read through the updated version of the algorithms document that
>     you sent
>     and compared with 
>     http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ntp-ntpv4-algorithms-01.txt.
>      
>     In the following I am assuming that the latter is essentially the
>     same as the material
>     in the NTP book, and that the copyright of the book is held by the
>     publisher.
>     If either of these assumptions is incorrect, then the following
>     analysis may be as well.
>      
>     My conclusion is that the edits, while definitely improving the
>     readability of the text,
>     (although I have technical questions about a few changes)
>     do not change the potentially infringing status of the draft.
>      
>     Let me explain why. 
>      
>     When considering whether a given work infringes the copyrights of a
>     protected work,
>     there are three main criteria:
>     1) a SUBSTANTIAL PART of the protected work must be copied
>     2) there must be OBJECTIVE SIMILARITY between the work and the
>     protected work
>     3) a CAUSAL CONNECTION must be proved.
>      
>     The first criterion means that the work in question must copy all
>     or a large part of the protected work. That is why book reviews can
>     reveal the contents and other authors can quote a passage or two
>     without infringing. In the present case the copying is clearly of a
>     substantial portion of the protected work.
>      
>     It is important to realize that the second criterion does not
>     mean word-per-word identity - the criterion is qualitative not
>     quantitative.
>     In fact derivative works, such as translations or plays based on novels,
>     do require the copyright owner's permission (they are specifically
>     designated by the Berne convention as part of the bundle of
>     exclusive rights).
>     It would be up to a court to decide in a particular case,
>     but in the present case it is clear that there IS objective similarity
>     (in fact, it is so similar in purpose, structure, and content
>     that I wouldn't even classify it as a derivative work).
>      
>     Causal connection means that the author of the work in question
>     usually needs to have seen the protected work and to have based his work
>     on it. There are loop holes in both directions here, in some
>     jurisdictions
>     making an architectural plan from a building would be infringing the
>     copyrights of the original plan, even if the draftsman never saw the
>     original plan. In the other direction there is a defense of
>     subconscious copying
>     if the author saw the protected work in the past but it was not
>     before him
>     while writing the new work, and he claims that he did not realize that
>     he was copying. In the present case we have a clear email trail
>     establishing
>     that the draft author had a copy of the material before him and based
>     his draft on it.
>      
>     Now there is a strong defense that I need to mention.
>     If it is claimed that C is a copy of protected work B,
>     C's author can show that in fact both are copies of an earlier work A
>     (assuming that A is in the public domain or C's author
>     has received permission to use A).
>     In the present case I had hoped that the new draft and the book
>     were derivative works of the NTP C-code (which I am assuming
>     is in the public domain, or alternatively that the author would
>     grant us permission to make a derivative work based on the code).
>     Unfortunately, this does not seem to be the case here.
>      
>     So I am afraid that the proposed draft version is no better than
>     the previous one in this regard. You should take into account
>     that copyright protection extends to expressions but not to ideas
>     or mathematical concepts, and thus it is perfectly possible to write
>     a draft
>     detailing the algorithms WITHOUT infringing the rights of the publisher.
>     But such a work must start from public domain sources or
>     from sources for which rights have been granted to the IETF. 
>      
>     Y(J)S
>      
>      
>      
>      
>      
>      
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ntpwg mailing list
> ntpwg@lists.ntp.isc.org
> https://lists.ntp.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/ntpwg