Re: What is the "open web" ?

On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 1:22 PM, Karl Dubost <karl@la-grange.net> wrote:

>
> Le 3 juin 2013 à 04:09, Mark Watson a écrit :
> > So, that would exclude anything where the patent landscape was such
> > that any performant implementation would require non-RF licenses, for
> > example wireless Internet technology ?
>
> It seems an abuse of language.
>
> * any implementation
> * performant implementation (a subset of any implementation)
> * "would require non-RF licenses"
>
> There is nothing which is from a technology point of view requiring a
> patent. Patents systems are here to promote a certain idea of our societies
> infrastructures. Some people cherish it, some not.
>
> The W3C has adopted the RF patent policy for the same reasons to
> allow/promote a certain idea of our society. The right to implement any Web
> related systems without encumbrance for the developers (with or without
> deep pockets).
>

So, this is where I am trying to understand the diversity of opinions.

Clearly there are people who believe it's acceptable to include something
in web standards even if it effectively requires the use of proprietary
components, provided those components meet some conditions (presumably
including being widely available on multiple platforms with some common
functionality that can be abstracted by the web API). I expect people
differ on what the conditions should be and I'd like to better understand
that. I understand from your mail and a couple of others that some people
don't believe this is acceptable under any conditions.


>
> If the "patent landscape" is such that it becomes not possible to
> implement something with that idea as a corner stone, then we have to go
> around [1].


I think it's clear that the W3C specifications have to be implementable RF.
I am talking about the case where those APIs rely (explicitly or
effectively) on underlying system capabilities that are not part of the W3C
specification.

...Mark


> Having a system where two legs are necessary for working and one of them
> is under RF doesn't make sense.
>
>
> [1]: https://www.google.fr/search?q=pag%20site%3Awww.w3.org
>
>
> --
> Karl Dubost
> http://www.la-grange.net/karl/
>
>