Re: Org schemas we talked to be non-free, was: [ELPA] New package: repology.el

[Dmitry Gutov]

On 26.01.2021 18:31, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > > > > There are several methods available for that, but the simplest one is
> > > > > to define new elements using the ones defined in the original schema.
> > > > Wouldn't that make it a derivative work?
> > > I don't know.  What if it does?
> > The original schema's license can impose restrictions on that.
> Does it, though?

The OASIS schemas we're talking about have a license blurb that starts 
with "All right reserved", and then only mentiones permissions to do 
derivative works "that comment on or otherwise explain it or assist in 
its implementation", which doesn't seem to cover derivative schemas for, 
say, experimentation.

Of course, many cases could be covered by Fair Use, and even those that 
don't, the likelihood of being sued is vanishingly low, and the main 
goal of theirs seems to be to avoid being misrepresented by others (e.g. 
by removing the authorship or keeping it but changing the contents 
somehow maliciously), but as a matter of license, permission for 
arbitrary derivative works seems absent.

IANAL, consult your lawyer, etc.

> And if it does, how useful is such a schema?

Just as a way to describe a certain fixed format, I guess?

The wording of their rules seems pretty bureaucratic. It seems you need 
to join OASIS (or work in a company that is part of it) to safely 
contribute to any new version of the format. Which is disappointing.

Again, IANAL, and perhaps there are some better explanations in their 
policy somewhere on the website. I just could find them so far.