[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: ISO intellectual property (was Standards)
- From: John Cowan <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: Tom Bradford <email@example.com>
- Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2001 15:06:29 -0400
Tom Bradford wrote:
> And I'm saying that if the person produces a document that *IS* the W3C
> document with a paragraph added about their little bit, and they're
> going to call it HTML 3.2.1, then they're in violation of copyright,
> if I were to write a one paragraph document that describes an addition,
> and says to refer to the W3C's HTML specification, then they're not in
> violation of copyright.
Right. The ISO HTML document looks very much like this: it specifies
a few differences, basically in the direction of tightening up, and
then refers to HTML 4.0 Strict for all the semantics; it provides
a different (copyrightwise independent) DTD.
> And unless the term HTML is trademarked, they
> could even call it HTML++ if they wanted to.
Right. And even then, you can't trademark just any word: a trademark
has to refer to specific goods and services that are sold (*trade*mark)
and are not merely descriptive of the goods (you can't trademark the
name "Blue Jeans" for your line of blue jeans, whereas for a line
of radios it would be perfectly OK). HTML is descriptive,
and doesn't refer to anything that the W3C sells.
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