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

Re: Policy requires definitions, remedies, guarantees

From: Daniel Phillips <phillips@bonn-fries.net>
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 00:16:36 +0200
To: Jeffrey Zeldman <jeffrey@zeldman.com>, www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org
Cc: Web Standards Steering <wspsc@webstandards.org>, list@webdesign-l.com
Message-Id: <20011009221621Z16370-17200+1851@humbolt.nl.linux.org>
On October 9, 2001 11:38 pm, Jeffrey Zeldman wrote:
> W3C first needs to spell out which standards (both existing and under 
> development) are and will remain royalty-free.  Such terms as "core," 
> "essential," and "non-essential" must be explicitly defined, and each 
> definition must *list the specific standards it encompasses.
> [...]
> Likewise, if RAND licensing is truly intended to apply only to
> "inessential," web standards, we need to know precisely what those
> "inessential" standards are.

While I find your commentary thoughtful and well written, a close reading 
shows it to support the idea that RAND licencing has a place in W3C 
standards.  In the above quote you suggest that only "essential" standards 
should remain royalty-free.

Whatever the definition of "essential" is, you are saying that GPL-licensed 
software should be restricted to the implementation of "essential" standards.

There is an obvious way to avoid troublesome questions of which standards are 
essential and which are not, and who should be restricted from implementing 
which: remove the provisions for RAND licensing from the PPF, and rely on RF 
licensing instead.

Received on Tuesday, 9 October 2001 18:16:38 UTC

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