[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)" <email@example.com>
- To: John Cowan <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2001 16:19:06 -0500
Intergraph Public Safety
Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h
From: John Cowan [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2001 4:17 PM
To: Bullard, Claude L (Len)
Cc: Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com; firstname.lastname@example.org
Subject: Re: Standards (yet again) was RE: Use of XML ?
Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
> 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
You can *claim* anything you want. You can sue Bill
Clinton for breaking your toe *vi et armis*, even if
1) your toe is not broken and 2) you have never been near him.
But there is something called "the laugh test"....
Anyhow, the text of the XML Recommendation simply doesn't have
enough in common with the text of the International Standard
to constitute a "translation, musical arrangement, dramatization,
fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording,
art reproduction, abridgment, [or] condensation" of it.
> It is clear that XML does substantially use and
> modify the IP that is SGML.
SGML is not an intellectual property, any more than
Fortran is. The text of ISO/IEC 8879 is a copyrightable
property, which is a very different thing.
> That can be seen
> by examining the documentation, by a review of
> extant messages, and by interview.
There is / one art || John Cowan <email@example.com>
no more / no less || http://www.reutershealth.com
to do / all things || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
with art- / lessness \\ -- Piet Hein