Licenses for XML Schemas and the content of associatedXMLdocuments
steven at semeiosis.com
Tue Feb 1 13:31:15 EST 2005
Ok, so help me - I am more than happy to be educated. If there is no
distinction between a copyright document and the rights over the concepts and methods as embodied in described mechanisms that the document contains then what
is the distinction between a patent and a copyright document? What is the
distinction between Creative Commons and Open Source licenses?
I assume from what has been said that it all pertains to the notion of copyright
but that does not appear to warrant a claim that there is no such thing as
"intellectual property" in law.
Certainly the author of a patent document holds copyright to it - but
a patent affords additional rights over the concepts and methods - which I and
others have historically referred to as "intellectual property."
A Creative Commons license, I had thought, licenses rights pertaining to the document only and not the use of the concepts and methods contained therein. If I describe an invention in a document and you create an instance of the
invention then my copyright alone does not allow me rights over your action - as
I understand it. If it does, I want to know why I have spent so much money with patent attornies over the years.
An Open Source license, again my understanding, licenses rights to the use of
the concepts and methods of a work. I assume what you are saying is that this
work is also the subject of copyright - that I would certainly concede.
How is my understanding flawed? If the law does not view
such concepts and methods in described mechanisms as that which can be the
subject of license - why patent law? If Open Source licenses afford the same
protection as Creative Commons then why one or the other?
Perhaps I have missed a legal position that makes concepts and methods an extension of the notion of copyright. Even so, this would not warrant the claim
that there is no such concept as intellectual property. Simply asserting that
intellectual property has no existence is just not helpful here. I am a layman
in these matters - not a lawyer.
My initial question, BTW, is simply about what type of license to apply to
XML schemas and a further question relating to the copyright of XML instance
documents - the latter seems tricky and I would like to be explicit about the
rights associated with this case.
Greg London wrote ..
> Steven Ericsson-Zenith said:
> > J.B. Nicholson-Owens wrote ..
> >> Steven Ericsson-Zenith wrote:
> >> > An open source license also licenses the use of intellectual property
> >> > - not only the copyright of the source. Copyright pertains only to
> >> > the substantive document it is applied to - not the intellectaul
> >> > property within. Or am I mistaken ?
> >> I think you are mistaken, but more on the use of a concept that has
> >> meaning. "Intellectual property" is not a real subject, thus no
> >> substantive questions can be asked about it and one cannot answer the
> >> question you have asked except to point out that the question makes
> >> sense.
> > That's very funny - since I have spent a good deal of my career developing
> > "Intellectual Property" for myself and others. In addition, I have spent
> > of that time asking substantive questions about it. Be that as it may
> Here's your prior message:
> :: An open source license also licenses the use of intellectual property
> :: not only the copyright of the source. Copyright pertains only to the
> :: substantive document it is applied to - not the intellectaul property
> :: within. Or am I mistaken ?
> Your choice of language suggests that (1) you are overcomplicating
> the issue with concepts that have no legal meaning or (2) you don't
> understand the law and are making stuff up or (3) you understand it
> perfectly but communicate it poorly.
> JB's assessment is accurate in pointing to a problem on your part,
> be it point 1, 2, or 3 above.
> Put simply, you're question cannot be answered because it cannot be parsed.
> Whether it is a typo or a bad choice of verbage or that you don't understand
> the concepts is impossible to know. But the short of it is your question,
> as it stands, doesn't make sense.
> Getting indignant towards the people who donate their time for free here,
> insisting that you know what you are talking about while demanding someone
> answer your question will only guarantee that your question remain unanswered.
> I suggest you try a fresh start, reword your question, and perhaps
> someone can answer it for you.
> cc-licenses mailing list
> cc-licenses at lists.ibiblio.org
More information about the cc-licenses