Facts cannot be copyrighted. Phrasing the description of YYYY-MM-DD strings and the like in a different way is likely sufficient to be freely available.
Now, whether that's actually enough to convince the administrators to keep it up and risk the time and expense of a lawsuit is another matter entirely - in practice, anything that rightsholders threaten to sue over is probably banned, regardless of the actual legal status.
> Facts cannot be copyrighted. Phrasing the description of YYYY-MM-DD strings and the like in a different way is likely sufficient to be freely available.
To my knowledge, wholesale 'rephrasings' of standards documents have never been undertaken, even where royalty-free access to a document is in relatively high demand, such as with the C standard. StackOverflow ends up being the substitute for the standards document.
As well as being a lot of work, it would open the door to small inaccuracies. A lot of work goes into 'laywering' the exact phrasing of such documents.
> To my knowledge, wholesale 'rephrasings' of standards documents have never been undertaken, even where royalty-free access to a document is in relatively high demand, such as with the C standard.
No, they have. As a specific example, ETSI TS 102 221 contains enough of ISO/IEC 7816-2, 7816-3, and 7816-4 that one can implement a compatible device.
No, from what I understand it's done to standardize a lot of telecom stuff across Europe. I think they're somehow related to the GSM, but I haven't been in the telecom industry in well over a decade so my memory is fuzzy there.
Now, whether that's actually enough to convince the administrators to keep it up and risk the time and expense of a lawsuit is another matter entirely - in practice, anything that rightsholders threaten to sue over is probably banned, regardless of the actual legal status.