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

Re: SVG ad inf.

From: F J Franklin <F.J.Franklin@sheffield.ac.uk>
Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2001 14:38:13 +0100 (BST)
To: www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org
cc: Daniel Phillips <phillips@bonn-fries.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.10.10110061419310.759-100000@gold>
On Sat, 6 Oct 2001, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> My interpretation is that, according to this proposal, no Recommendation would
> be finalized if it was considered to be subject to claims of a member's patent
> for which an RF license has not been offered.

If RAND licensing is inevitable, then at a minimum I want to know exactly
which parts of the specification are covered, and exactly what the
licensing terms are.

However, I am deeply unhappy with the idea that RAND licensing may be
inevitable, and I believe that the W3C has the power (though perhaps not
the legal authority?) to insist on RF licensing in all open standards.

I suspect that the PPF will be ratified regardless of its furious
rejection by the open source / free software community. If it is, then I
hope that, at *least*, Chris Lilley's amendments are incorporated.

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 Saturday, 6 October 2001 09:38:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:06:44 UTC