W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2009

Re: Input on request for link relation [ w/ proposed modifications to link draft ]

From: Brett Slatkin <brett@haxor.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 04:33:56 +0000
Message-ID: <966f8bd30909202100s3767db8ck51fcc088470f99f4@mail.gmail.com>
To: Robert Sayre <sayrer@gmail.com>
Cc: Kris Zyp <kris@sitepen.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Sam Johnston <samj@samj.net>, Lisa Dusseault <lisa.dusseault@gmail.com>, Atom-Syntax Syntax <atom-syntax@imc.org>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org

I'm in no position to speak on behalf of Google regarding the patent
you referred to, but I will say a few things:

The whole point of PubSubHubbub is to be an open protocol, free of
patents, that anyone can use. We're going to release it under the
license coming out of the Open Web Foundation
(http://openwebfoundation.org/) once that's ready (I hear drafts are
very far along).

If you read the PubSubHubbub spec, your mind will overflow with absurd
amounts of prior art on which we've built things. It's obvious that
any patent on this technology is invalid or long expired. Please read
it if you haven't and you'll see what I mean.

I find it frustrating that you're lumping me, Brad, Martin, and this
spec together with some patent we had nothing to do with. We're trying
to do good here and help the web. I'd appreciate it if you could
recognize the level of effort we're putting into this, into being
open, and into reaching a consensus.


On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 7:07 PM, Robert Sayre <sayrer@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 7:41 PM, Kris Zyp <kris@sitepen.com> wrote:
>> I am not necessarily opposed to the addition of a
>> simple/non-namespaced relation, but it still seems like it should be
>> necessary to have some the relationship clearly articulated enough to
>> delineate between "hub" (or whatever relation name that is used) and
>> the existing "monitor" relation. A developer (like me) should be able
>> to make an informed selection between the two for other notification
>> formats.
> It looks like the "hub" relation might see substantial running code as
> well as rough consensus.
> At least, that's supposedly one of the good parts of the IETF. The
> main bad part is an amoral attitude regarding software patents, to the
> point that some Areas operate on the assumption that every participant
> has cross-licensed everyone else's patents, so that the industry
> status quo is preserved. In the Applications Area, I think an upfront
> royalty-free policy should be required (I would be surprised to find
> my employer, Mozilla Corporation, disagreeing). When I see patents
> filed on penetrating glimpses into the obvious[1], my sympathy for
> those suffering tedious namespace arguments suddenly evaporates.
> I've changed my position, and I do not support the "hub" relation. If
> all of this technology were part of an RF Internet, in letter and
> spirit, I feel this group could have a more productive conversation.
> [1] http://www.scripting.com/stories/2009/09/17/googleGetsAPatentOnReading.html
> --
> Robert Sayre
> "I would have written a shorter letter, but I did not have the time."
Received on Monday, 21 September 2009 08:19:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:10:51 UTC