SUO: Bob's Questions on copyright
Bob Spillers: If I interpret your note correctly the SUMO is not public
domain.
J. Schoening: Yes, SUMO, IFF and all other standards developed by all other
SDOs are not 'public domain.' They are copyrighted.
Bob Spillers: This means it is not freely usable by anyone for any reason.
J. Schoening: You couldn't change it and release it as your own standard, or
you couldn't sell copies. However, IEEE has given us permission to post the
document (in draft and final) on the web for free downloading by anyone.
Anyone can use this standard for any product, research, or just about any
other purpose that I can think of, as they can with other IEEE standards.
Can you think of an example of a use that would be restricted?
Bob Spillers: NOTE: Having had some experience with these issues at a very
large
corporation with more patents than any other company, unless you have
well drafted signed IP releases from ALL contributors the copyright
means very little.
J. Schoening: Good point. If someone contributes their own Intellectual
Property (IP) to the SUO WG, that is considered 'Work for Hire' and IEEE
gains the right to change and distribute it. The risk is that someone
brings in an outsider's IP without their written permission. It is my job
to make sure this doesn't happen and I have informed both the SUMO and IFF
teams they must guard against this.
Bob Spillers: Does the IEEE stand behind its copyright (i.e. will
it defend the copyright in litigation at its own expense)?
Jim Schoening: Yes.
Bob Spillers: For most companies the choices are ironclad copyright/patent
or unambiguous public domain.
Jim Schoening: IEEE has an ironclad copyright, but people can use the
standard for products and most other purposes without cost. They cover
costs by selling copies of the documents, not charging for its use.
Bob Spillers: Just claiming one's product "conforms" to some high level
description is
different than incorporating actual code. If the product doesn't
actually "conform" there might be a marketing blitz (by competitors) to
point this out. Using code without having clear rights to it is very
risky and the larger the revenue the higher the risk.
Jim Schoening: So, you're concerned that products will incorporate actual
content (or code) from the SUO standard. But isn't this common with many
standards and products? I don't see a problem with a vendor doing this.
Can you site an a similar example where a vendor was prevented from using a
standard in this manner?