[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

RE: ISO intellectual property (was Standards)

• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• To: Tom Bradford <bradford@d...>, Don Park <donpark@d...>
• Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2001 12:40:52 -0500

Well, maybe.  Apparently the W3C has different 
rules for its own documents and schemas.  Making 
references is a good thing.  The question is one 
of value.  What does the reference imply other 
than to assert that the work is derivative.  

Beyond rights granted by putting the material 
into a fixed form, a copyright claimnant reserves rights.  
That would mean they are within their rights to make derivative 
works if granted such rights by the original holder 
of the copyright, yes?

Again, the SGML references have a value.

Len 
http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard

Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h


-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Bradford [mailto:bradford@d...]

According to international copyright law, any document that is produced
is automatically protected by copyright, registered or not.  But from
what I understand, it doesn't disallow derived works, or external
referencing from other documents.  If it did, the entire WWW would be a
massive copyright violation.   And a trademark only protectes the use of
a name, not a process or specification.  

So things like Common-XML and Minimal-XML are perfectly within their
right to derive from XML, just as the W3C was perfectly within its
rights to dervice from SGML and even go so far as to make references to
ISO documents.

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: ISO intellectual property (was Standards)
    • From: Tom Bradford <bradford@d...>

• Prev by Date: RE: ISO intellectual property (was Standards)
• Next by Date: Re: ISO intellectual property (was Standards)
• Previous by thread: Re: ISO intellectual property (was Standards)
• Next by thread: Re: ISO intellectual property (was Standards)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread