On 28 May 2025 10:36, Jonathan Wakely via Std-Proposals wrote:
>
> On Wed, 28 May 2025, 00:42 Ville Voutilainen via Std-Proposals, <std-
> proposals_at_[hidden] <mailto:std-proposals_at_[hidden]>> wrote:
>
> The proposals aren't ISO publications, they are not in any ISO system
> (that's why they are P-numbered, not N-numbered), so the only possible
> copyright holders
> for them are their authors.
>
> IANAL, of course. Don't take that as actual legal advice. It's my
> understanding of the situation where there is no copyright assignment
> being made,
> and no distribution or other kind of license being stated.
>
> The copyright of the proposed wording transfers to ISO when it's
> incorporated into the draft and subsequently to a standard , and
> proposal authors understand that,
> but they still hold the sole copyright to their proposal papers,
> because nothing else is stated.
>
> Right, authors retain copyright of papers, and as Oliver said, they're
> certainly not in the public domain. That's a specific legal term that
> means they're *not* covered by copyright, so you can't say they're
> copyrighted and also in the public domain, that's a contradiction.
>
> The permission to redistribute the papers (which is needed for them to
> be hosted online and sent out to the committee) does not imply
> permission to modify them and create derived works (such as a training
> set for an LLM). I believe you would need permission from the individual
> authors for that.

I think, one would need a permission if he intended to distribute that
LLM or host a publicly accessible service that exposes it to users. But
one does not need a permission to use papers locally however one wants,
including training an LLM or using a search engine.