• To: 'Andreas Sewe' <sewe@r...>, "[XML-Dev]" <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: RE: RDDL: Can we add a "copyright" version
• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 11:19:05 -0600

What entity issues the license or asserts the copyright?  The W3C? 
If so, the copyright is likely better.  I don't think the W3C is 
in the business of licensing or collecting revenues for royalty-free 
specifications and standards.  I also think one would copyright 
the documents even if one issues a license for the IP claimed within.

Eric, what do you want to protect or manage with this IP claim?

len

From: Andreas Sewe [mailto:sewe@r...]

> Not really: I meant a copyright purpose rather than version :-( .

Wouldn't "license" be a better name serving the same purpose? To me
"copyright" sounds more restrictive than "license" - and more
restrictive than necessary as well.

Besides that I'm in favour of the proposal.

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: RDDL: Can we add a "copyright" version
    • From: Eric van der Vlist <vdv@d...>

• Prev by Date: RE: schema validate key uniqueness attribute (name) ofelements
• Next by Date: Re: JSR 206 and SAX
• Previous by thread: RE: schema validate key uniqueness attribute (name) ofelements
• Next by thread: RE: RDDL: Can we add a "copyright" version
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread