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

RAND implies more changes

From: Lucio Tato <luciotato@yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2001 09:18:50 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <20011005161850.82928.qmail@web11207.mail.yahoo.com>
To: www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org
I've readed the
"W3C in seven points",
(http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Points/)
that seems to define the philosophy of the consortium.
I think you can approve RAND, but also you must change
some of the points that define your self... becoming
something else.

First of all, the name:
From "World Wide Web Consortium" it should be changed
to "Private Wide Web Consortium" that seems more
appropiated.

Point 1. Universal Access, should be changed to

1. Universal Access(*)
   (*) if you have the money to pay RAND licences.

Point 3. Trust should be completely removed, because
if there is an economical interest, i canīt trust your
decisions.
When thre is an economical interest, you canīt prove
that your decisions are PURELY based on the best way
to "lead the Web to its full potential", so, you
become non-trustable.

Point 4. Interoperability, should be changed the same
way to point 1.
Recommendation: use a dollar sign ($) instead of an
asterisk to mark the
footnote, and add the marker to point 1 and 4.
Point 4. Interoperability($)
   ($) if you have the money to pay RAND licences.

Point 5. Evolvability. You will be creating interests
against Evolvability if the "evolution" is from RAND
to RF. it is obvious.

I support approval of RAND, but if you make all of
this changes, starting with the name.

Regards.
--------


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
NEW from Yahoo! GeoCities - quick and easy web site hosting, just $8.95/month.
http://geocities.yahoo.com/ps/info1
Received on Friday, 5 October 2001 12:18:52 GMT

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