W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-w3process@w3.org > November 2011

RE: Patent Protections at CR

From: Carr, Wayne <wayne.carr@intel.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 21:34:49 +0000
To: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
CC: "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>
Message-ID: <52F8A45B68FD784E8E4FEE4DA9C6E52A16F0AA48@ORSMSX101.amr.corp.intel.com>
It isn't just to have something for lawyers to review.  Some companies may not want licensing commitments for their intellectual property that doesn't actually make it into the spec.  Candidate Rec could lead to features being thrown out.  I think for at least some companies they'd want to know it is a real, implementable spec that they're donating to.

There also would be less reason to ever complete the spec --  the licensing is already in place.  So it would make a Candidate Rec with no test suite and no demonstration that it can be interoperably implemented a new type of "final spec".

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Robin Berjon [mailto:robin@berjon.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2011 12:24 PM
>To: fantasai
>Cc: public-w3process@w3.org
>Subject: Re: Patent Protections at CR
>
>On Nov 16, 2011, at 19:53 , fantasai wrote:
>> This might need some mangling of the CR process to give the lawyers
>> adequate time for review, but we should figure out what those
>> requirements are and build those into the CR process instead of
>> delaying protections until the test suite and implementation reports are done.
>
>+1
>
>Is this not something that we can simply take to the PSIG for advice?
>
>--
>Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon
>

Received on Wednesday, 16 November 2011 21:35:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:35:07 UTC