Re: [ubl] Updated version of the Customization doc (v0.2)

[jon.bosak@sun.com]

Sorry it's taken so long to answer Stephen's inquiry about
customized UBL schemas as derivative works, but it's an important
question, and I wanted to get a definitive response from OASIS.
Jamie Clark (who unlike most of us actually *is* a lawyer) has
answered for OASIS as follows:

   OASIS policies support implementations, subsetting and
   extensions of OASIS works, so long as they respect conformance,
   in the sense of not claiming compliance with an OASIS work, or
   identity with an OASIS work, incorrectly.

   Specifications and models published for use by others that
   incorporate OASIS work should include the following in an
   appropriate place, usually near the author's own copyright
   notice:

      Portions copyright (c) OASIS Open 200[8]. All Rights Reserved.  

   This text can be followed by our policy URI if the author
   wishes to provide that reference:

      http://www.oasis-open.org/who/intellectualproperty.php

   Those who publish such works should take note of the rights
   available under the OASIS IPR Policy and their limitations,
   including any notices posted with respect to a specific work.
   In specific cases there may be parties other than OASIS who,
   from time to time, post assertions that a license is needed.

   We generally welcome activity of this kind, and would be
   pleased to hear of the final URI or resource.  In appropriate
   cases, OASIS may assist in publicizing the work in its own
   channels.

IANAL, but I think the most important paragraph in Jamie's
response is the first one: as long as the ultimate origin in an
OASIS publication is properly acknowledged, the issue is not
whether you are allowed to create a subset or superset, but rather
whether you are allowed to claim that the modified product is the
one that OASIS originally published.  The answer to that is No.
So if you modify the UBL 2.0 Invoice schema, for example, you
can't claim that it's the UBL 2.0 Invoice schema (and you should
include a copyright statement like the one shown above, changing
the year as appropriate).

Jon

   Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 05:23:58 -0700
   From: stephen.green@systml.co.uk

   Again, an excellent document in my opinion and I appreciate
   the changes made. I've hesitated in asking this before but
   maybe there is a legal issue the document might deal with:
   the copyright statement on the OASIS artefacts seems to be
   a little at odds with customisation. Is there an acceptable
   way to create and publish schemas for subsets which can be
   assured NOT to violate the stated OASIS copyright notice?

   "This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to  
   others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it  
   or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published,  
   and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any kind,  
   provided that the above copyright notice and this section are included  
   on all such copies and derivative works."

   This gives the impression it is OK to produce a derivative schema
   for a subset, even if you aren't a UBL group, provided it includes
   the OASIS copyright.

   But:

   "However, this document itself may not be modified in any way,  
   including by removing the copyright notice or references to OASIS,  
   except as needed for the purpose of developing any document or  
   deliverable produced by an OASIS Technical Committee (in which case  
   the rules applicable to copyrights, as set forth in the OASIS IPR  
   Policy, must be followed) or as required to translate it into  
   languages other than English."

   This gives the impression you cannot produce a schema which is a modification
   of the OASIS UBL schema, unless you are a UBL TC group or another OASIS TC.

   Maybe an agreed way to produce a custom-UBL schema without violation
   of any of the copyright notice would not go amiss within the customisation
   guidelines.


   Plus I'm still not convinced the document adequately covers the matter
   of semantic changes - so-called 'semantic drift' - as a reason to customise
   and whether or not customisations of the definitions of BIEs or datatypes
   is compliant or conformant. If compliant, then how to cater specifically
   for such changes in a compliant way. And can a change which only changes
   wording of a definition constitute a conformant customisation? And since
   the change to a definition does affect instance validity does this not
   require a slight modification or qualification of the definition of what
   constitutes a conformant customization?


   Sorry to ask questions which might provoke controversy but I guess they
   have to be asked at some point and now seems to be the time.

   -- 
   Stephen D. Green

   Partner
   SystML, http://www.systml.co.uk
   Tel: +44 (0) 117 9541606

   http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew+22:37 .. and voice

   Quoting mavis.cournane@cognitran.com:

   > Dear all
   > please find attached the updated version (0.2) of the Customization
   > document based on plenary review today.
   >
   > Regards
   > Mavis and Mike