Anthony DeRobertis wrote: > On Feb 12, 2004, at 12:45, Henning Makholm wrote: >>> Putting our own forms into TEI's namespace would be similar to >>> claiming that they said something they did not. >> >> No it isn't - not unless you *explicitly* claim that it was TEI who >> said it. > > If TEI's namespace is something like 'tei-consortium' and there is no > technical reason things have to be added there (I don't think there is; > aren't namespaces just to prevent collisions?) then I think it is > perfectly reasonable to argue that things in there appear to originate > with the TEI Consortium. > > I think the TEI Consortium would have a reasonable case against --- > under trademark law --- someone who did it without making it *very* > clear that his extensions are non-standard and are not endorsed by the > TEI Consortium. > > Is there any good reason that I'd ever want to infringe on TEI's > namespace, as opposed to using my own? I was under the impression that > the whole point of namespaces was to make it clear what standard > something comes from, and to prevent collisions. >
Claiming endorsement by TEI without permission is definitely not allowed, and this restriction is perfectly DFSG-free. However, trademarks cannot be applied to functional elements, and a namespace seems like a functional element, since a program reading the XML/SGML could check the namespace and fail if it is not a given value. Any restriction that attempts to require modified specifications or files to be distinguishable from the originals _by a program_ would be non-free, and would not be allowed by trademark law anyway. The desired restriction here, which is perfectly free, is that a _person_ can distinguish between the original and the modified version, because of the lack of endorsement. - Josh Triplett
