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

Re: We must fork the SVG standard (was: SVGA 1.0 uses RAND -> DO NOT ! implement it, DO NOT ! use it)

From: Glenn Randers-Pehrson <glennrp@home.com>
Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2001 08:42:15 -0400
Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20011005084215.00d23730@netmail.home.com>
To: www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org
Dan Phillips wrote:
>[Chris Lilley wrote:]
>> Please get your facts in order. The public review period of the SVG 1.0
>> specification (from first public working draft on 11 February 1999 to
>> end of the Proposed Recommendation period on 16 August, 2001) was *over
>> 29 months*
>
>Let me get this straight.  You claim the public review period for SVG did not 
>go by quietly?  From the list archive:
>
>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-svg/
>
>we see:
>
>  Total comments for August 2001: 60

From the message titles, it appears that *none* of the 60 discuss the
patent policy.

Of 63 messages in July, 4 seem to deal with patent policy.  One of these
says that there was a lot of discussion about it in the closed list but
it was just "a bunch of talking".

Of 40 messages in September, 2 seem to have to do with patent policy.

None of the 3 messages in October mention it.

I remind you that the public review period beginning 11 February 1999
was to review a document that said nothing about patent policy.  That
didn't appear until July 2001, as far as I can tell, and public comment
was not invited on that document.  I personally would have commented
anyhow but was indisposed at the time and didn't see the July document
until this week.

I applaud the W3C for its hard work on the technical aspects of SVG
and for considering patent implications.  I disagree with the decision
to allow RAND licensing of SVG features, whatever those features might
be.

Glenn
Received on Friday, 5 October 2001 08:45:04 GMT

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