Ken is correct.
A 'standard' is as Rachel describes yet we can have
'Specifications' which are not standards, and specifications can be 'open'
and hence non-proprietary.
But let's not get too caught up in terminology because even though the W3C
is not an official standards body, its 'Recommendations' act as standards
within the XML community.
Jonathan Borden
The Open Healthcare Group
http://www.openhealth.org
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2000 5:54 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: When are schemas or software proprietary?
There's been some e-mail discussion of my recent comments about the nature
of intellectual property -- whether being conformant to an accredited
standard determines whether property is proprietary or not.
Nothing in that reply or this message, should be construed as denigrating
the standards process, or the importance of standards.
My purpose in posting the earlier message was to point out a problematic
line of reasoning -- "that which is not standard is implicitly proprietary".
If you consult with an attorney about proprietary protection of software or
other intellectual property, you'll find you must take certain explicit
actions to protect your proprietary property rights. Here are a few excerpts
that illustrate my point:
1. "Nevertheless, in order for proprietary provisions to be effective, there
must be an agreement with the party whose actions the licensor desires to
restrict."
PROPRIETARY PROTECTION OF SOFTWARE BY CONTRACT by Fred Greguras, Esq. of
Fenwick, Stone, Davis, and West, Palo Alto, California.
2. Copyright protection can be forfeited "if copyright notices are omitted."
3. Copyright notices must be placed "in such a manner and location as to
give reasonable notice of the claim of copyright."
4. "There are ways of avoiding loss of trade secrets and proprietary
information in connection with required deposits under current law."
Item 4 refers to deposits with the Copyright Office. For patent protection,
you must go through a registration process with the appropriate patent
office. In other words, do not assume proprietary status is implicit when
you create intellectual property. There are explicit actions you must take
for copyright or patent protection.
Not being an accredited standard does not implicitly grant proprietary
status.
Of course, there are also developers who want to make their software freely
available. If you want something to be easily recognized as being
non-proprietary, add notices to the source code. Keywords such as "public
domain" are hard to misconstrue. There are also licenses such as GNU that
include some restrictions on subsequent use of the code.
P.S. When in doubt, consult an intellectual property attorney.
----- Original Message -----
From: Ken North
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, September 02, 2000 7:42 PM
Subject: Re: XML Schemas/DTD for HealthCare Industry
Ken said:
>> It's true we do not have a W3C Recommendation for schemas, but that's not
what determines whether a schema is proprietary or not. >>
Rachel said:
<< I beg to differ with your opinion about what constitutes a proprietary
schema vs a "standard". <<
If you re-read my message, you'll see it does express an opinion about what
constitutes a standard. In fact, it does not mention the word standard.
Rachel said:
<< In the world of standards, the label standard is typically reserved for
those that have been approved by a recognized standards development
organization, most often accredited or sanctioned by one of several
organizations, such as ANSI, ISO, UN/CEFACT, and so on. This would also
include the IETF RFC's. <<
I'd add there are de facto standards and de jure standards. Based on your
list, you seem to be making the argument that anything that is not a de jure
standard is proprietary.
We are not in agreement about this. If I'm deciding whether something is
proprietary, I ask first whether it is public domain (below) or available
without restriction, not whether it conforms to an international standard.
public domain n(1832) 2: the realm embracing property rights that belong
to the community at large ...
Consider open source software and other works that people create and release
to the public domain. The Linux operating system, for example, is not
published as an ANSI/ISO standard or IETF RFC. If we assume your definition
("something is proprietary if it is not a standard"), then Linux is a
proprietary operating system.
I also disagree with the interpretation that something which is a standard
is not proprietary.
pro�pri�e�tar�y [snip] 4. Owned by a private individual or corporation under
a trademark or patent.
You can look to encryption algorithms to illustrate the distinction between
proprietary, public domain, and standard. The Tiny Encryption Algorithm is a
non-proprietary encryption algorithm because David Wheeler and Roger Needham
placed TEA in the public domain, not because TEA is an ISO or other
standard.
On the other hand, the US government has accepted Ron Rivest's RC6
encryption algorithm as a finalist to become the new federal Advanced
Encryption Standard. RC6 is patented technology, so by definition 4 above,
it is proprietary. RSA has said it will waive patent licensing fees if RC6
is accepted as the new encryption standard --
nonetheless, RC6 could be both standard and pro�pri�e�tar�y.
So getting back to my original point:
If I create a schema, register it with xml.org and biztalk.org, release it
to the public domain, or otherwise make it freely available, it is not
proprietary just because we do not have a standard for schemas. It is by
definition non-standard, but non-standard is not a synonym for proprietary.
------ XML/edi Group Discussion List ------
Homepage http://www.XMLedi-Group.org
Unsubscribe send email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Leave the subject and body of the message blank
Questions/requests: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To receive only one message per day (digest format)
send the following message to [EMAIL PROTECTED],
(leave the subject line blank)
digest xmledi-group your-email-address
To join the XML/edi Group complete the form located at:
http://www.xmledi-group.org/xmledigroup/mail1.htm
------ XML/edi Group Discussion List ------
Homepage =http://www.XMLedi-Group.org
Unsubscribe =send email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Leave the subject and body of the message blank
Questions/requests: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To receive only one message per day (digest format)
send the following message to [EMAIL PROTECTED],
(leave the subject line blank)
digest xmledi-group your-email-address
To join the XML/edi Group complete the form located at:
http://www.xmledi-group.org/xmledigroup/mail1.htm
------ XML/edi Group Discussion List ------
Homepage http://www.XMLedi-Group.org
Unsubscribe send email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Leave the subject and body of the message blank
Questions/requests: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To receive only one message per day (digest format)
send the following message to [EMAIL PROTECTED],
(leave the subject line blank)
digest xmledi-group your-email-address
To join the XML/edi Group complete the form located at:
http://www.xmledi-group.org/xmledigroup/mail1.htm
