- From: Ian Clarke <ian@hawk.freenetproject.org>
- Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 08:50:03 -0700
- To: www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org
- Message-ID: <20011002085003.A30679@freenetproject.org>
The problem with allowing the W3C to endorse "Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory (RAND) Licensing" is that, simply put, standards which require the payment of royalties are neither reasonable nor non-discriminatory. In fact, standards which require royalty payments discriminate against a group that has been and continues to be instrumental in the creation and growth of the Internet, and a group which powers many aspects of the Internet today, namely the Open Source or Free Software community. In my opinion, one of the core tests for a proposed standard should be whether it can be implemented under an Open Source license such as the GNU Public License. The fact that HTTP was such a standard permitted the creation of the Apache web server which, according to a recent Netcraft survey, provides 60% of all websites on the Internet, over twice that of its closest rival, Microsoft (see http://www.netcraft.com/survey/). By endorsing "RAND" standards, the W3C is acting as little more than a business development department for the corporation to whom royalties must be paid - and this is completely inappropriate for an organization whose goal is to "lead the World Wide Web to its full potential by developing common protocols that promote its evolution and ensure its interoperability". Ian Clarke. Coordinator - The Freenet Project Chief Technology Officer - Uprizer Inc.
Received on Tuesday, 2 October 2001 11:55:39 UTC