[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] General Public License for DTD and Schema
A couple weeks back, I mentioned a General Public License that I have been drafting with the input of a few others specific to DTD and Schema. The GPL has been posted at the following link and I would apprecaite any comments you have on it. http://www.xmllegal.org/Legal/GeneralPublicLicense.htm Somone recently asked me to compare it to the OASIS intellectual property policy. My answer is below. Your comments on this would be appreciated as well. ============================ > What is/are the differences between the OASIS license > http://www.oasis-open.org/who/intellectualproperty.shtmland and the "GPL" > one proposed by the AOC? This is a good question. If you categorize provisions as (1) general and (2) specific to the technology, I would compare the two in this way. (1) The OASIS license has more verbiage (i.e., total words) in the "general" category. Nevertheless, my opinion is that the intent is the same -- i.e., to provide specifications royalty free, perpetually, and on non-discriminatory terms. (2) In the "specific to the technology" category, the <xmlLegal> GPL does not conflict with the OASIS license, but goes into more detail. This detail is directly relevant, and very important in my view, to the development of industry-specific XML schema. The <xmlLegal> GPL distinguishes between: 1. Original or Licensed Works 2. Derviative Works 2. Extended Works 3. Versioned Works Derivative Works are not permitted. Extended Works are permitted, provided that Extensions are published back to the owners/developers of the Original/Licensed Works. Versioned Works are permitted, provided that the same process or procedure is used to create new versions and/or that the owners/developers of the Original/Licensed works agree on a different process or procedure. (Please see the GPL for more detail.). The OASIS license does not make these distinctions. The purpose of making these distinctions is to avoid, if possible, the browser wars or the Sun/Microsoft java wars, but to allow (indeed, encourage) innovation via published extensions between versions. Consider the following example. In the browser wars, Netscape implemented the HTML specification faster/before Microsoft and implemented the specification more vigorously (i.e., complied better with the standard). Microsoft had/has a loose implementation in IE. For example, at the time (perhaps still), in Netscape, if the closing tag on a table element was not present, then the table would not render. However, in Microsoft IE, the same table, without the closing table tag, would render. The result is that IE customers thought that IE was the better browser (because it rendered the table), and that Netscape was the poor browser (because it did not render the table). In fact, Netscape had implemented the standard better and, in this respect, could be seen as more socically responsible. The user simply wrote sloppy HTML. Great for the user. **Disaterous** for interoperabilty. Microsoft engaged in similar anti-social conduct when it added new elements to HTML unilaterally and without warning or discussion. The result is that Microsoft built a "better" (user friendly) browser for its customers, but essentially "hijacked" the core HTML spec (i.e., "embrace and extend") leaving its competitors at an unfair disadvantage. The <xmlLegal> GPL distinguishes between derivative work and extensions through the use of namespaces. Thus, a unilateral change to a schema (distinguished by its namespace) is not allowed. However, one can create a different schema in a separate/distinct namespace and mix it with an original schema, provided that one (a) follows normalization rules (i.e., schema best practices -- so people don't have to deal with other people's sloppy schema) and (b) publish the schema to the developers of the original work (so everyone knows how to validate when faced with an xml instance with that has "know" elemented mixed with "foreign" elements). Thus, "embrace and extend" (i.e., reasonable innovation) is allowed, but it is allowed in managed way, which is only fair considering the time, energy, and subject matter expertise contributed by the original owners/developers. ======================== Thanks, ========================================= Winchel "Todd" Vincent III Attorney and Technical Consultant Project Director, E-CT-Filing Project Georgia State University College of Law US Office: 404.651.4297 US Mobile: 404.822.4668 US Mobile: 859.489.8077 US Voice : 770.216.1633 US Fax : 770.216.1633 US Fax : 425.955.1526 AU Mobile: 011 61 0408 606 272 AU Fax : 011 61 2 9475 0147 Email : winchel@m... Web : http://e-ct-file.gsu.edu/
|
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
|