Re: Standards (yet again) was RE: Use of XML ?

[John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com>]

Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:

> Nonsense?  Hmm.  Usually a legal test is 
> required to determine who owns intellectual 
> property and I contend that regardless of 
> the copyrights, SGML constitutes intellectual 
> property, but let's say you are right.


Of what kind?  In the U.S., at least, IP must be
one of: copyright, patent, trademark, trade secret.
Each has very separate rules.

 
> "A profile is not a derivative work." 
> 
> Interesting position.  No safeguards at all. 
> Just open ranges, sheep, cattlemen and hired guns.


Pretty much the way the law always is.

  
> What happens if the W3C decides that XML is not 
> to be a profile in the future, but a completely 
> separate work?


I should have said: it is a separate work (from a
copyright viewpoint) that happens to correspond
in practice to a profile of SGML.  The profile
(by James Clark) is not normative for XML.


> What happens if ISO decides to ammend SGML such 
> that all of the features of XML are now SGML 
> features,


That's already happened:  the Web TC.

> Is Microsoft free to extend Java in any way 
> they see fit as long as they don't call it Java


They can't call it "Java", because that is a Sun
trademark.

They can't use any of the JVM or utilities or
class libraries from Sun, because that is
copyright by Sun and available only under license.

-- 
There is / one art             || John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com>
no more / no less              || http://www.reutershealth.com
to do / all things             || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
with art- / lessness           \\ -- Piet Hein