RE: A simpler idea (was: Re: Fair use and case analysis)

["Contreras, Jorge" <Jorge.Contreras at wilmerhale.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: John C Klensin [mailto:john-ietf at jck.com]
> Sent: Friday, April 28, 2006 4:15 PM
> To: Ted Hardie
> Cc: Spencer Dawkins; Brian E Carpenter; ipr-wg at ietf.org; 
> Simon Josefsson
> Subject: Re: A simpler idea (was: Re: Fair use and case analysis)
> 
>  
> (ii) We cannot prevent them from creating forks by any mechanism
> involving copyright.  Copyright covers the form of expression.
> At the cost of writing new text that describes the new plan the
> fork-er is protected from any copyright-related license on the
> text we might come up with.   The fork-er is equally protected
> by supplying no documentation at all, or by incorporating our
> text by reference (e.g., "this is just like RFC 9999 except that
> paragraph 8.2 should now read '....'").  Copyrights on RFC text,
> even if unambiguously valid, just don't offer us any protections
> against those options. 

I agree with this reasoning.

> 
> (iii) Someone creating a fork and then claiming that it is the
> IETF spec, or conforming to it, is involved in a matter of
> fraud, not copyrights.  If "we" (or any other injured party) are
> willing to invest the resources, there are ways to deal with
> fraud that are probably more effective and more clear than any
> dancing around with copyrights and ownership of text.

Agreed.  In addition, this is where assertion of the IETF trademark
can be useful (i.e., the fork-er could be prevented from using the
term IETF to promote its deviant standard).

_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wg at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg