[dsdl-comment] Re: Schema copyright

Alex Brown wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> I have had what I think is a useful response from the Central
> Secretariat, as follows:
>
> ------------------------------------------------------
> Please note that ISO's approach in specific cases -and as required by
> the implementation of the document- has been to include permission
> notices for specific parts of the standard derogating the general
> copyright conditions of that standard.
>
> Normally the permission notice that we include is along these lines:
>
>
> "The following permission notice and disclaimer shall be included in all
> copies of this XML schema ("the Schema"), and derivations of the Schema:
>
>
> Permission is hereby granted, free of charge in perpetuity, to any
> person obtaining a copy of the Schema, to use, copy, modify, merge and
> distribute free of charge, copies of the Schema for the purposes of
> developing, implementing, installing and using software based on the
> Schema, and to permit persons to whom the Schema is furnished to do so,
> subject to the following conditions:
>
> THE SCHEMA IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR
> IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY,
> FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL
> THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR
> OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE,
> ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SCHEMA OR THE USE OR
> OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SCHEMA.
>
> In addition, any modified copy of the Schema shall include the following
> notice:
>
> THIS SCHEMA HAS BEEN MODIFIED FROM THE SCHEMA DEFINED IN ISO xxxxx-y,
> AND SHOULD NOT BE INTERPRETED AS COMPLYING WITH THAT STANDARD."
> ------------------------------------------------------
>
> It seems to me this is exactly the kind of thing we want, and we should
> take care to make sure that in future such a notice is included in any
> schemas our Standards include ...

I tried to look at it from the point-of-view of
"re-distribution" rather than just original "distribution".
That seems okay to me, although i am not expert.

Also wondering if "for the purposes of" introduces an
issue regarding a "field-of-use" restriction.
Again that seems okay to me.

-David

--
DSDL comments
To unsubscribe, please send a message with the
command  "unsubscribe" to dsdl-comment-request@dsdl.org
(mailto:dsdl-comment-request@dsdl.org?Subject=unsubscribe)