In article <MPG.207f9f0619ed2ff598971d@n...>,
Grant Robertson  <bogus@b...> wrote:

>> Regardless of whether the GPL is appropriate for protecting a
>> specification, the OP apparently wants to prevent others from
>> extending his work, which is contrary to the spirit of the GPL.  While
>> I sympathise with the aim of preventing the likes of Microsoft from
>> "embracing and extending", doing this by restricting what ordinary
>> users can do would certainly put me off using it.

[...]

>So, "ordinary users" can always suggest and work for changes in the 
>standard. Just as one can do with all the existing internet standards. 
>But they will not be allowed to fragment the standard by releasing non-
>conforming software or content and claiming it is yet another "version" 
>of the standard. 

Well, you might be able to trademark the name to prevent them from
claiming that it's a version of it, but I don't think you can - or
should be able to - stop people from writing software that implements
extensions to your standard.

The author of the 1960s programming language TRAC tried to use
trademark law to control the language, but extended versions were
produced under different names.

-- Richard
-- 
"Consideration shall be given to the need for as many as 32 characters
in some alphabets" - X3.4, 1963.