Re: F+O spec : function finder

Hi Abel,

> Suppose you would device the next *specification* for direct current 
> machines under 800V within certain surroundings. You want to enforce 
> this, perhaps even so that any machine dealing with 800V input *must* 
> follow your specification or it cannot be admitted to a certain market 
> (say, European Union, for getting the CE stamp on your machine).
>
> This statement below says that you *cannot* use XQuery etc to be (part 
> of, or the whole of) such *technical specification*.
>
I wanna see how they use XQuery for that purpose


> In other words, you cannot borrow this *technical report* and use it 
> as a *technical specification*. 

Although XQuery calls itself also a specification. Just not a 
_technical_ specification.

> Just don't write your own specification with it, and you should be 
> fine (though writing an *extension* specification, such as EXPath is 
> totally allowed).
>

That makes sense.


Or perhaps EXPath is only allowed, because they write something new and 
do not copy pieces of XQuery



Best,
Benito



On 12/03/2016 06:57 PM, Abel Braaksma wrote:
>
> I'm no lawyer either, but I think the statement is pretty clear, and 
> it is precisely because of the tension between what a "technical 
> report" and a "technical specification" is.
>
> Suppose you would device the next *specification* for direct current 
> machines under 800V within certain surroundings. You want to enforce 
> this, perhaps even so that any machine dealing with 800V input *must* 
> follow your specification or it cannot be admitted to a certain market 
> (say, European Union, for getting the CE stamp on your machine).
>
> This statement below says that you *cannot* use XQuery etc to be (part 
> of, or the whole of) such *technical specification*. In other words, 
> you cannot borrow this *technical report* and use it as a *technical 
> specification*.
>
> Apart from the legal problems (report vs spec) there's the issue of 
> responsibility: this statement prevents that any of these TRs can be 
> used in a document that has a stronger legal enforcement policy than 
> the TRs themselves (but I admit, this is pretty vague in and of itself).
>
> Just don't write your own specification with it, and you should be 
> fine (though writing an *extension* specification, such as EXPath is 
> totally allowed).
>
> If you just use it to explain itself, I don't see any (legal) issues.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Abel
>
> *From:*Michael Kay [mailto:mike@saxonica.com]
> *Sent:* Saturday, December 03, 2016 6:02 PM
> *To:* Benito van der Zander
> *Cc:* public-xsl-query@w3.org
> *Subject:* Re: F+O spec : function finder
>
> I'm not a lawyer. I sympathise with the problem, because I often have 
> to interpret such prose myself, but I couldn't possibly advise anyone 
> else on how to interpret it.
>
> Michael Kay
>
> Saxonica
>
>     On 3 Dec 2016, at 17:05, Benito van der Zander <benito@benibela.de
>     <mailto:benito@benibela.de>> wrote:
>
>     Hi Michael,
>
>     >, anyone may prepare and distribute derivative works and portions
>     of this document in software, in supporting materials accompanying
>     software, and in documentation of software, PROVIDED that all such
>     works include the notice below. HOWEVER, the publication of
>     derivative works of this document for use as a technical
>     specification is expressly prohibited.
>
>
>     I do not know what a technical specification is :(
>
>     Is it a list? Is it a long list?
>     Is XQuery a _technical_ specification? It only mentions being a
>     technical _report_.
>
>
>     Bye,
>     Benito
>
>     On 12/03/2016 05:03 PM, Michael Kay wrote:
>
>             On 3 Dec 2016, at 13:54, Benito van der Zander
>             <benito@benibela.de <mailto:benito@benibela.de>> wrote:
>
>             Hi,
>
>             inspired by this I made a list for XPath 3.0, JSONiq and
>             my implementation:
>             http://www.benibela.de/documentation/internettools/xpath-functions.html
>
>             Without any content and just many links to the F&O it
>             looks rather void of information.
>
>             Is one allowed to copy pieces of F&O (or the EXPath specs)
>             in the list, so it can say what each function does?
>
>         The license terms are here:
>
>         Document License
>         <http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/copyright-documents>
>
>         Michael Kay
>
>         Saxonica
>