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

Re: SVG ad inf.

From: Daniel Phillips <phillips@bonn-fries.net>
Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2001 15:56:40 +0200
To: F J Franklin <F.J.Franklin@sheffield.ac.uk>, www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org
Cc: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
Message-Id: <20011006135642Z16331-17200+1033@humbolt.nl.linux.org>
On October 6, 2001 03:38 pm, F J Franklin wrote:
> 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.

As has been pointed out repeatedly on this list, RAND licensing for web 
standards is not feasible because of the large component of free software and 
volunteer authors in implementing those standards.  This sets the web apart 
from other environments in which RAND has been used successfully.[1]

> 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.

The way I read it, Chris Lilley's proposal does not permit a recommendation 
to be finalized if it incorporates RAND licensing.

Perhaps Chris would be willing to clarify that point.

[1] In my opinion, this is not the time or place to speculate on whether RF 
licensing would have been even more beneficial than RAND in those other 

Received on Saturday, 6 October 2001 09:56:44 UTC

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