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

SVG ad inf.

From: F J Franklin <F.J.Franklin@sheffield.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2001 16:00:20 +0100 (BST)
To: www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.10.10110051544130.6389-100000@gold>
In response to:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-patentpolicy-comment/2001Oct/0917.html

> We did call for known patents to be disclosed and we did express a
> strong preference for RF licensing.

It is in this 'strong preference' that we *diverge* from agreement!
The W3C's role should be to *insist* on RF licensing.

> So if you can't get RF from someone you would rather have nothing at
> all  - ok, fine. I would rather have RAND than nothing at all, because I
> have seen what 'nothing at all' can mean in practice.

What is your perspective here? Are you speaking as an individual or as an
organisation? If the former, can you as an individual afford RAND
licensing? Or are you content to implement only the 95%, say, of the open
standard that is unrestricted?

The central question here, that I have yet to see addressed (but please
correct me if I'm wrong), is: Does the W3C intend its licenses to be
freely implementable by the open source / free software community?

If the W3C believes it is fair for open source developers to be at a
disadvantage to big business then please tell us now.

Regards,
Francis James Franklin

Deep in the human unconsciousness is a pervasive need for a logical
universe that makes sense. But the real universe is always one step
beyond logic.
          --- from `The Sayings of Muad'dib' by the Princess Irulan
Received on Friday, 5 October 2001 11:00:21 GMT

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