clintonG (cs*********@REMOVETHISTEXTmetromilwaukee.com) wrote:
: I understand but disagree with your comments which I appreciate
: regardless. I've done due diligene in other areas and am well
: familair with trade mark and trade name issues.
: XML is a *computer language* and as such a computer language
: can in fact be copyrighted if it meets specific criteria, notably the
: requirement that it must be (1) original, (2) creative, and (3) fixed in
: a tangible medium of expression. It can also be a derivitive work
: as XML if that which the derivitive is derived from does not
: disallow derivitive works. I've discussed this with 2 guys from the
: W3C each of whom confirmed that XML itself is in the public
: domain but when asked to substantiate could not provide any
: documentation. I'm still trying to find legal counsel for the W3C
: in this regard.
: Aside from that, it is item 3 most of us laypersons have problems
: understanding how to apply. The 'expression' is the determination of
: the means by which the original and creative work is conveyed
: including the structure and the presentation of the conveyance.
: For example, did you know the way a web page is displayed on
: the monitor can be copyrighted? That would be a good example
: of 'expression' and was the basis for lots of litigation which most
: of us refer to as the 'look and feel' noting there are grey areas that
: can and will affect what I am working on that could compromise
: how the expression is 'published' which can make or break me
: as the process of publishing a copyrighted work is a very important
: condiseration of the expression itself.
: Clear as mud heh :-)
(egads, all this top posting)
Suit yourself, but I don't see that "look and feel" copyrights have
anything to do with copyrighting an xml language.
: --
: <%= Clinton Gallagher, "Twice the Results -- Half the Cost"
: Architectural & e-Business Consulting -- Software Development
: NET
cs*********@REMOVETHISTEXTmetromilwaukee.com
: URL
http://www.metromilwaukee.com/clintongallagher/
: "Malcolm Dew-Jones" <yf***@vtn1.victoria.tc.ca> wrote in message
: news:41******@news.victoria.tc.ca...
: > clintonG (cs*********@REMOVETHISTEXTmetromilwaukee.com) wrote:
: > : I'm having a difficult time determining how to proceed with protecting
: > : an eXtensible Markup Language (XML) I am developing for use with
: > : an application written in C#.
: >
: > : I'll probably be using Creative Commons as I want to make it possible
: > : for others to freely use the markup language while disallowing others
: > : to resell or reuse in commercial endeavors. I have no clue how
: > : enforceable a Creative Commons Copyright may be when the U.S.
: > : Copyright office is the 'official' authority.
: >
: > An xml markup language can not be copyright, it would have to be patented.
: >
: > You can copyright a book _about_ the language, and depending on the type
: > of data in a marked up document, you may be able to copyright specific
: > documents that used the language. You could also copyright specific
: > implementations of software that somehow involved your language. But the
: > language itself is a technique, and would have to be patented.
: >
: > Patenting is much harder than copyright. Copyright automatically belongs
: > to the author of anything that can be copyright basically as soon as it is
: > created.
: >
: > Patenting is an involved process.
: >
: > However, there are ways to protect the names of thing. A "registered
: > trademark" for example, and others I am not familiar with. One of those
: > technique could allow you to protect the name of the language, and to tie
: > any use of the name back to you, the author.
: >
: > Caveat, I am not a lawyer, these are my opinions, based on things I have
: > read.
: >
--
(Paying) telecommute programming projects wanted. Simply reply to this.
