[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Standards (yet again) was RE: Use of XML ?
- From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: John Cowan <email@example.com>
- Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2001 15:56:23 -0500
But wait a minute, doesn't it say in the profile that
XML is a conforming subset of SGML?
I suspect if we looked carefully at the content,
and the copyrights, we would find sufficient cause
to claim at the very least, copyright infringement
were the current arrangements not in place (see below).
It is clear that XML does substantially use and
modify the IP that is SGML. That can be seen
by examining the documentation, by a review of
extant messages, and by interview.
(NOTE TO READERS: No one will do this. There is no advantage
to it for any party. We are having a discussion to
look at the ins and outs of standards, specs, etc.
and how they are affected by legal entities).
Yes, the law comes down often to lawyers, judges,
and deep and not-so-deep pockets. Yet the point
is, "What should and can we require of authorities that
seek to govern by consent?" To what extent does
the use of XML correspond to contract law? Where
a standard is cited in a contract for services, the
cited document is by reference, part of the contract.
That is a situation where the contracting parties
must be aware of the implications of the reference.
Yes, the WebTC preserved the relationship
between ISO and the W3C with respect to the definition
of SGML and a conforming subset, XML. It should be noted
that this relationship is of value, else it would not
be documented thus. We may inquire what that value
is and how it manifests. Opinions?
Intergraph Public Safety
Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h
From: John Cowan [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2001 3:36 PM
To: Bullard, Claude L (Len)
Cc: Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com; email@example.com
Subject: Re: Standards (yet again) was RE: Use of XML ?
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
The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an initiative
of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single word
"unsubscribe" in the body to: email@example.com