UTF-8 in ZIP

[robert_weir at us.ibm.com]

Of course, the presumption is that ISO would not be satisfied to 
standardize the Application Note as-is.  For example, it is not in the 
correct format.  So some creative contribution would be made, and a 
copyright would apply to the new portions of the derived work.  The net 
effect is the same -- the standard could not be redistributed so long as 
there was any copyrightable  ISO contribution.

-Rob

"Dennis E. Hamilton" <dennis.hamilton at acm.org> wrote on 11/03/2010 
01:47:05 PM:


> 
> One can only assert copyright on something for which one has acquired 
a[n
> exclusive] copyright transfer or is copyrightable subject matter that is
> ones original work (or original work obtained by hire).
> 
> So, if something is indeed in the public domain, anything that 
incorporates
> (portions of) it does not extend its copyright over the incorporated
> material, which is still in the public domain, even in the place
> incorporated.  If the US government created a specification that became 
an
> ISO specification, there is generally no copyright to transfer and the 
only
> thing the ISO copyright would pertain to is the "original" material that 
was
> made the wrapper on that specification content.  The copies of the US 
Income
> Tax instructions that show up in compilations in bookstores all bear a
> copyright notice, but it only extends to the compilation as such, not 
the
> content which is a repetition of freely-available documents of the US
> Government Internal Revenue Service.
> 
> There is no way to ever pre-empt the copyright (or non-copyrightable) 
status
> of a work by its inclusion in a combined work of some sort.  The 
copyright
> on the combined/derivative work does not extend over the material that 
is
> obtained from the original work.
> 
> This seems to confuse open-source contributors and mash-uppers no end.
> Their copyright only applies to the portions that are original to them 
*and*
> that consist of copyrightable subject matter.  (Whether they have fair 
use
> of the non-original parts depends on the status of those parts as
> copyrightable subject matter, any license granted with respect to those
> parts, and what a judge would have to say on the matter.)
> 
> Since it has come up recently, there is generally no tolerance for a 
claimed
> copyright on the use of an API (and certainly not a programming 
language,
> although the specification of the programming language is a different
> matter).  Languages are not subject to copyright and there is a related
> doctrine on "utilitarian necessity," where if there is essentially only 
one
> way to say something (e.g., to use an API or to express something in a
> programming language), saying so is not a copyright infringement.  Of
> course, it is only courts that will determine whether the doctrine 
applies
> in a dispute brought before them.
> 
>  - Dennis [who doesn't even play a lawyer on televison]
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: sc34wg1study-bounces at vse.cz [mailto:sc34wg1study-bounces at vse.cz] 
On
> Behalf Of robert_weir at us.ibm.com
> Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 2010 08:56
> To: MURATA Makoto (FAMILY Given)
> Cc: sc34wg1study-bounces at vse.cz; sc34wg1study at vse.cz
> Subject: Re: UTF-8 in ZIP
> 
> sc34wg1study-bounces at vse.cz wrote on 11/03/2010 10:10:39 AM:
> 
> > 
> > > What can we offer PKWARE?
> > 
> > PKWARE has got world-wide acceptance of ZIP partly because 
> > PKWARE claimed that ZIP is in public domain.  What we can offer is 
> > more formal status of this "contract" and no challenges to this
> > world-wide acceptance. 
> > 
> 
> It depends on what you think "public domain" means.  Some have suggested 

> that this means that there is no copyright and that one can take the 
> Application Note and make derived works from it.  But if we make an ISO 
> standard of this, surely ISO will claim copyright on that, and therefore 

> this hypothetical "public domain" aspect of it would be eliminated.
> 
> [ ... ]
>