[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Standards (yet again) was RE: Use of XML ?
- From: John Cowan <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <email@example.com>
- Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2001 16:35:46 -0400
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
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
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 <firstname.lastname@example.org>
no more / no less || http://www.reutershealth.com
to do / all things || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
with art- / lessness \\ -- Piet Hein