W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org > October 2001

Re: [www-patentpolicy-comment] <none>

From: Daniel Phillips <phillips@bonn-fries.net>
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2001 12:21:54 +0200
To: "WINTER,CHRIS (HP-Sweden,ex1)" <chris_winter@hp.com>, www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org
Message-Id: <20011005102148Z17051-17200+729@humbolt.nl.linux.org>
On October 5, 2001 12:11 pm, WINTER,CHRIS (HP-Sweden,ex1) wrote:
> On Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2001 13:38:26 -0400 (EDT), Christopher Hicks wrote:
> >In terms of computing technology, the IETF
> >stands as a shining example of how to get standards widely implemented.
> >The fact that the standards were written by practical engineers instead of
> >standards lawyers is certainly one reason for that.   
> 
> I am quite sorry to say that a colleague pointed out that,contrary to
> popular belief, the IETF actually has adopted a RAND model. 
> 
> More information can be read at http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2026.txt.
> Especially chapters 6.2 and 10.3 make for quite interesting reading. Given
> the fact that IETF has been coined as a success story on standard
> implementation by various contributors to the current discussion (who are
> zealously opposing RAND style arrangements in the W3C case), plus the fact
> that IETF uses a RAND model makes it clear to me that I perhaps should
> re-evaluate my position on the matter at hand. 

Me too.  Specifically, we must raise these same issues with the IETF.

RAND-encumbered standards are acceptable for neither organization.  However, 
this list is specifically concerned with the W3C proposal to encumber 
standards with RAND licensing.  The IETF's RAND policy is a separate issue, 
and also must be addressed.  We should thank the W3C for drawing attention to 
it.

--
Daniel
Received on Friday, 5 October 2001 06:21:52 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 April 2010 00:13:41 GMT