RE: namespace copyright, trademark patent question
Winchel 'Todd' Vincent III wrote: >If one can copyright or patent a schema (or any other xml document), then >one can also exclude/prevent others from using the schema (or any other xml >document). Yeah, although this is also somewhat weird in that you can copyright an xml document as xml, even though the text it 'marks-up' is in the public domain. >This is a bad thing for >interoperability, but a for-profit company might reasonably decide to do >this if it deemed this were in its best business interests. Bad things for interoperability in the interest of business are generally seen as being abusive by developers I think, at any rate it is hard for me to see it otherwise. >On the other hand, the ability to copyright and patent schema can be a very >good thing for interoperability *if* coupled with an appropriate "general >public license" (I'm using "general public license" in a generic sense). Insofar as there is a general license given at the first issuance of the schema, yes, as it would prevent later business-based decisions by the issuer to restrict the schema. This was why I worried specifically about namespaces, namespaces as far as I know have not been given any specific rights yet by the courts and none have been reserved for any specific namespace that I know of, if I were to go back to English Common Law I might suppose that this would be taken to mean that no rights exist for a namespace if those rights have not been reserved, but I am of the worrisome type that supposes rather at some point business reasons will compel some company to argue that their declaration of a namespace is in fact an implicit reservation of rights for the markup to which that namespace refers, and if that happens things will start going pear-shaped quickly. >I have been working on a General Public License (which I'm happy to share >with this list if anyone is interested) tailored specifically for schema in >different namespaces. The main points follow: well I'm interested, it might be cool to have it somewhere one can access. The question is if it could be based on the creative commons work - http://www.creativecommons.org/ >Whether or not extended elements should be published back to the owners is >probalby something to be decided on a case-by-case basis. Suppose Company >A >spends five years and a lot of money to create schema/namespace A and >builds >software around it. Company B comes along and in one month, uses and >extends schema/namespace A with schema/namespace B and builds software >around it. Company B now has a product that has more features in it (A + >B) >than Company A's product. I am liable to be Socially Darwinian about such a scenario, even though it might come back to haunt me :) If Company A took 5 years to build something and Company B builds something with more capabilities in one month then Company A should wander off into the nearest tarpit and duck.
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!
Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!
Download The World's Best XML IDE!
Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!
Subscribe in XML format