Re: (c) in OO software modeling language

Gabriel Wachob <gwachob[_at_]aimnet.com> wrote:
>
> My question: how much if any of their specification can I use in making
> my product? Can I go so far as using their names for objects internally
> in implementing the tool?

My UML documentation says:

"The UML is nonproprietary and open to all." 3.3 UML Summary, version 1.0

Furthermore, Rational is proposing it as a standard to the OMG as well as a standard to ISO.

This indicates to me that, although currently the copyright belongs to Rational, they plan to transfer this to OMG (http://www.omg.org). That they say it is nonproprietary and open to all seems to grant a nonexclusive, unrestricted license to use to the public.

This is similar to the situation with some other freely available standards. For example, Sun owns the copyright in Java. MIT and the X Consortium own the copyright in Xlib, Xt, Athena widgets, and other components of the X Window System. That you can freely use these components does not mean they are in the public domain since I can see no way under U.S. law to "declaim" authorship (and therefore copyright), it simply means that it is freely licensed.

If, at some future time, they decide to invoke copyright against you, this clause would save you. But, knowing Grady and some of the other folks at Rational, I can't imagine this happening.

BTW, I am working on a paper suggesting the use of UML in patent applications as a language-independent means of describing object-oriented software.

Stephen J. Hyland
<shyland[_at_]computer-lawyer.com> Received on Wed May 28 1997 - 16:13:14 GMT