Re: Fw: Re: DAML+OIL submission to W3C (copyright/patent)

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider (
Date: 10/20/01

From: Dan Connolly <>
Subject: Re: Fw: Re: DAML+OIL submission to W3C (copyright/patent)
Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2001 10:01:39 -0500

> That legal text took a long time to get. Please just
> use it.

The copyright is not a particular problem, except in that originating
organizations who care about copyright almost always use their copyright
wording, not the wording of the journal or other publishing body.  If W3C
wants to use a particular wording then it will have to be passed by at
least Lucent's lawyers.  The fact that W3C took a long time to get the
wording has no bearing on any of the legal issues.

> >  I don't see what IP we want to claim -- any tools developed
> > by any of us remain our own.  The language is something I don't see
> > any of us owning/licensing.
> The text of the specification of the language is something
> that we own copyrights in, unless/until we sign them away.
> [I think. IANAL]


> Frankly, I'm not qualified to "think" about this IP stuff.
> If the text I gave is acceptable, please accept it. If it's
> not, this could take much, much longer.

Agreed.  But if W3C wants some (particular) wording then it just may take a
long time, as many companies have been sensitised to patent issues with respect
to the W3C.  My avenue of approach is going to have to be that I will get
some wording from Lucent lawyers and attach that to the submission.  If
this causes problems, then so be it.


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 04/02/02 EST