- From: Toby Perkins <tobywan@ari.net>
- Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2001 08:06:27 -0400
- To: www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org
I am writing to oppose the anti-free-software position that this working draft embodies, and urge the working draft's prompt and complete rejection. I also feel that you need to dismiss the current members of the Working Group without thanking them for this attempt to destroy free software and free speech and not use their services to draft any further policies. The following comment on your "patent-response" web site is particularly objectionable, obfuscatory, and discouraging towards those who would dissent from American corporate attempts to destroy the free thought, free speech, free work, and free software of the rest of us: <quote> As the proposed policy includes proposals such as:a requirement for disclosure provisions (Section 7);a procedure for launching new standards development activities as Royalty-Free Licensing Mode activities (sections 4 and 5);a procedure for launching new standards development activities as Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory (RAND) Licensing Mode activities (sections 4 and 5); W3C would like to know if your opposition to or support for the policy refers to all three of these proposals, or just some of them. <unquote> This statement attempts to confuse an important issue and discourage participation in the comment process. It is an example of the use of legalisms to ensnarl and defeat-by-exhaustion (or impoverishment) individual citizens who try to defend themselves against further corrosive law-making by greedy American corporations. I feel that the W3C should lead its own fight against American intellectual property law. The W3C should work to defeat, reduce, and eliminate intellectual property laws and their imitation by other countries, and take consistent positions that clearly fight for free speech around the world. Splitting hairs on these issues is never appropriate. If a policy is unclear or mixed in its effects on free speech, then the entire policy is bad. Is that clear enough for you? If you feel that there is any part of this objectionable policy that should be rescued, then I suggest that you vote down the policy, dismiss the panel members without thanks, and start over again with a completely different and more representative group to draft a policy that protects free speech and free thought in all of its provisions. It should be obvious to you by now that the group who drafted this policy, and its entire working draft, is not trusted by the vast majority of those of us responding to your call for comments. Let them go.
Received on Monday, 8 October 2001 08:00:43 UTC