- From: Daniel Stone <daniel@sfarc.net>
- Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 17:32:34 +1000
- To: www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org
- Message-ID: <20011002173234.A7463@kabuki.sfarc.net>
From http://www.w3.org/Consortium/: "The W3C was created ... to lead the WWW to its full potential by developing common protocols that ... ensure its interoperability." That's from the very first sentence of "About W3C". Number one. Numero uno. The most important bit. And yet, you people are seriously considering implementing a proposal which is in direct contradiction to this sentence. So, let's see, what are your goals? Aha, here it is again - number one. "1. Universal Access: To make the Web accessible to all by promoting technologies that take into account the vast differences in culture, education, ability, material resources, and physical limitations of users on all continents". Again, it raises the question - you are going to blatantly contradict your first and most important goal? The mind boggles. If Netscape had to pay a "Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory" fee towards HTML, it's extremely doubtful that Netscape would be free (as in beer) today. If everyone else had to pay a RAND fee for proposals, then I can assure you that there would be few, if any, Free Software (or even Open Source, except maybe for Mozilla) browsers around. Hell, would there be any? I mean, if there was, surely one could take the Recommendation more or less from the source? And then, what constitutes "reasonable" and "non-discriminatory". I'm a high-school student, living on a reasonableish budget, attempting to do various Free Software stuff. For me, even a fee of around $500 would be "discriminatory", since I don't exactly have that sort of cash on hand. The only reason the W3C is around and relevant today is standards. If the RAND proposal goes ahead, we won't have a return to the 4.0ish days (where you either designed a text-only site, a site for Netscape, or a site for MSIE). We'll have much, much worse. Why? Because it's sanctioned by the very authority that was meant to keep things open and sane. It's ironic that you're attempting to make yourselves irrelevant. I fully agree with Alan Cox; this is not at all in the spirit of Tim Berners-Lee. Keep the Web open. For free. For capital-F-Free, as well. -d -- Daniel Stone <daniel@sfarc.net>
Received on Tuesday, 2 October 2001 03:32:48 UTC