[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: free licensing of TEI Guidelines

On Feb 11, 2004, at 14:44, Syd Bauman wrote:

While this would meet the goals articulated above, it appears that
Debian has some potentially serious objections to the GFDL[1]. So the
question arises, how can we create a copyleft license that is
sufficiently free for Debian, but at the same time prevents others
from claiming TEI-conformance for texts that are not?

Stop. You don't want to use copyright law to do this! Copyright law deals with copying, distributing and deriving from works. Nothing you can do with copyright law can stop me from writing my own document and claiming it as TEI conforming.

Go look up trademark law. That's what you want. If I state that something has the endorsement of the TEI Consortium when it doesn't, I have violated the Lanham(?) Act [sorry, offline, can't check the name]. I forget which title of US code it is, but you'll be able to find it easily --- look for trademarks.

If you want to register it, I believe you want a certification mark.

You can put something like this in the license:

	This document is an official standard of the TEI Consortium.
	If you modify it, you must make it clear that you have done
	so and that the TEI Consortium does not endorse the result.

Or, you could just go look at the GPL, which already essentially has that.
PS: Apologies if I've just made up the name 'Lanham Act', or if it
    turns out to concern something entirely different, like breeding
    Martians in your pool on Tuesdays under a blue moon (original

a) a copyleft notice that requires those who modify the Guidelines to
   retain unmodified or delete in its entirety the section that
   defines TEI conformance, or

Depends on what's in that section, methinks. If upon modification you need to delete the endorsement of the TEI Consortium, that's fine. If it's a huge section, then I think the document would only be free once its deleted.

b) a copyleft notice that requires that modified versions of the
   Guidelines describe documents with a different root element name
   (perhaps, similar to "<?xml", reserving any string that matches
   "^[Tt][Ee][Ii]") and to not use the TEI namespace.

You can't actually enforce that with copyright law, methinks. Someone could always write their own document to describe their extensions.

Reply to: