- From: Jason Antony <s1118355@student.gu.edu.au>
- Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2001 16:45:04 +1000
- To: <www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org>
Daniel Phillips wrote: > If we go by your reckoning (and the Microsoft comment really is a forgery) > then we're down to zero. Of course, it's possible I overlooked some > favorable comments in my quick scan of over a thousand emails. Thanks for clearing that up. In addition, I browsed the archives, but didn't find any concrete RAND supporters. By principle, I wouldn't include anyone who authored the draft, or its affiliates. So yes, there isn't any genuine support for RAND here. I have one doubt - is IBM's Gerald Lane opposed to RAND in W3C standards or not? I hereby propose that the W3C work in Internet time and modify the draft to reflect the following: - mandatory patent disclosure by members of the WG; - ensure all W3C standards and recommendations - past, currently under development and future - shall remain freely implementable and royalty- free, with no restrictions whatsoever, in perpetuity; - lastly, shelve RAND; Kindly add anything I may have missed, or any errors. Regards Jason
Received on Thursday, 4 October 2001 02:45:35 UTC