> In any case, as it stands a DTD is a document, and documents are ipso
> facto copyright by their authors. You're certainly correct that if I
> made a rational reconstruction of the DocBook or TEI DTD
> functionality, I'd be on pretty safe ground,
You would.
> and even if I expanded
> all the parameter entity references of e.g. the TEI under a given set
> of switch settings, I might be able to get away with redistribution of
> the result, although that's MUCH less clear.
No, you would not, except as provided by some copyright license with
TEI's copyright owners. As I posted before, the right to make
derivative works is a component part of the bundle of rights that
the copyright owner has.
> The parallel with QuickSort is illuminating. If I redistribute YOUR
> awk implementation of QuickSort, with our without relabling some of
> the variables, I've violated your copyright. If I code QuickSort
> myself in perl, I'm just fine.
Correct. However, if the algorithm were patented (which it is not),
you would have other problems.
> If I use a2p on your source and
> redistribute the results, the lawyers will have a field day.
It's only the other fella's lawyers who will have a field day.
Your lawyer will tell you to settle, and quick. Running a2p
over a document is just like translating it into French --- you
can't distribute the result without a license.
BTW, these are all international (i.e. Berne convention) rules,
not local law.
-- John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan cowan@ccil.org You tollerday donsk? N. You tolkatiff scowegian? Nn. You spigotty anglease? Nnn. You phonio saxo? Nnnn. Clear all so! 'Tis a Jute.... (Finnegans Wake 16.5)