SUO: Bob's Questions on copyright
At 12:37 2001-10-30 -0800, Robert Grayson Spillers wrote:
>
> "Schoening, James R CECOM DCSC4I" wrote:
> 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.
The key word is "use". A standard is "used" by "implementing" it. Anyone is free to "implement" the SUO standard. Copying the standard for the purposes of reselling paper copies (etc.) to compete with IEEE's sale of paper copies is not "using" a standard.
> ...
> RGS: Most standards are a description of how a software product or some other product should be made in order to conform to the standards document. Since this is potentially a part of a product (say a commercial search engine) its purpose would be to sell it or its function to customers. There aren't a great deal of legal complications to claiming conformance even if you don't conform - maybe your competitors will make it an issue or in the worst case one might have to retract the conformance claim. If one uses code one does not own without the proper rights, one is giving the IP owners a share of their revenues - both the owners of the IP and how large a share to be determined by some legal process.
There are other kinds of standards than the one you refer to above, e.g., registries, test methods, and so on. In the case of these standards, one may use them (or "implement" them) ... and one is using the "code" that is published in the standard (without payments to the standards organization).
> If people on this list have contributed to the SUMO and have not signed a well drafted IP release, they own a share of the IP - regardless of whether the IEEE or Teknowledge ultimately retains the copyright. There are more difficult issues - assume one signs a well drafted IP release to IEEE and the SUMO does not become a standard. In this event (and absent some specific agreement among the parties) I believe the IP reverts to its contributor. If it reverted to Teknowledge then the IEEE would have a very significant problem with the IRS about its non profit status - see Lee Auspitz's notes on this issue, I believe the IEEE Institute is taking his comments very seriously.
I think it has been made clear to everyone (including you, several times) that this activity is considered "Work for Hire" ... IEEE holds the copyright on the work produced in this WG.
Regarding Lee Auspitz's notes on the IRS and IEEE, I think the IEEE staff said that Lee was confused about not-for-profit issues (regarding IEEE), he raised no significant issues, and his issues caused no changes in IEEE-SA (or IEEE) operation.
> ...
> Bob Spillers: ... Using code without having clear rights to it is very risky and the larger the revenue the higher the risk.
If the standard contains "code" (e.g., registries, test methods) that is normative (i.e., "code" that is mandated by the standard), then "using" the standard includes using the "code".
I see no problems.
-FF
_______________________________________________________________________
Frank Farance, Farance Inc. T: +1 212 486 4700 F: +1 212 759 1605
mailto:frank@farance.com http://farance.com
Standards, products, services for the Global Information Infrastructure