2 ms·

> So is Java, but here we are. > https://www.cnet.com/news/sun-wins-java-iso-approval/ https://www.cnet.com/news/sun-wins-java-iso-approval/ That article des

by grzm 7y ago

> So is Java, but here we are. > https://www.cnet.com/news/sun-wins-java-iso-approval/ https://www.cnet.com/news/sun-wins-java-iso-approval/ That article describes when Sun was recognized as an official submitter for a proposed standardization of Java. It later withdrew. > "In 1997, Sun Microsystems approached the ISO/IEC JTC 1 standards body and later the Ecma International to formalize Java, but it soon withdrew from the process." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Java_(programming_language)#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Java_(programming_language)#Hi... Java is not an ISO standard.

monocasa 7y ago
The standard process is orthogonal anyway.
- grzm 7y ago
  Orthogonal to what? The point is there is no "owner" of SQL in the way Oracle claims to own the Java API.
  - monocasa 7y ago
    How can an ISO standard grant access to a form of property that no one even thought could exist until decades after the ISO standard was written?
    - grzm 7y ago
      I can no longer follow what you're arguing, nor do I think you're considering what's been presented to you. Have a good day.
      - monocasa 7y ago
        I'm saying that ISO standards have might have no bearing on copyrightablity of APIs, or enforcement of that copyright. Copyright was never intended to protect against use in any implementation like Oracle's argument for API copyrightablility here. The idea of copyright at the time was protection against strict copying of the same (or close enough) implementation, and therefore ISO standards don't really protect against copyright claims. At the very best it's extremely grey area in the law.
        tingletech 7y ago
        ISO standards annoying are copyrighted with DRM (your pdf copy has your personal email in it, so they would know who shared it IIRC) — but have a policy that any patents must be disclosed and reasonably licensable.
        colejohnson66 7y ago
        IMO that’s not necessarily DRM, so much as just a watermark. Although one could argue they are using it to manage their rights digitally, hence DRM.

by grzm 7y ago

monocasa 7y ago

The standard process is orthogonal anyway.

grzm 7y ago
Orthogonal to what? The point is there is no "owner" of SQL in the way Oracle claims to own the Java API.
- monocasa 7y ago
  How can an ISO standard grant access to a form of property that no one even thought could exist until decades after the ISO standard was written?
  - grzm 7y ago
    I can no longer follow what you're arguing, nor do I think you're considering what's been presented to you. Have a good day.
    - monocasa 7y ago
      I'm saying that ISO standards have might have no bearing on copyrightablity of APIs, or enforcement of that copyright. Copyright was never intended to protect against use in any implementation like Oracle's argument for API copyrightablility here. The idea of copyright at the time was protection against strict copying of the same (or close enough) implementation, and therefore ISO standards don't really protect against copyright claims. At the very best it's extremely grey area in the law.
      - tingletech 7y ago
        ISO standards annoying are copyrighted with DRM (your pdf copy has your personal email in it, so they would know who shared it IIRC) — but have a policy that any patents must be disclosed and reasonably licensable.
        colejohnson66 7y ago
        IMO that’s not necessarily DRM, so much as just a watermark. Although one could argue they are using it to manage their rights digitally, hence DRM.