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

Re: Policy requires definitions, remedies, guarantees

From: Jason Antony <strat666@nettaxi.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 13:48:35 +1000
Message-ID: <3BC3C513.D520E0AB@nettaxi.com>
To: www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org
CC: Daniel Phillips <phillips@bonn-fries.net>, Jeffrey Zeldman <jeffrey@zeldman.com>

Apologies if this is a repeat post, seems my mail server has crashed

Daniel Phillips wrote:

> 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.

Also, remove the third clause in the RF definition, which mandates that
a Royalty-Free License "shall not be considered accepted by an
implementer who manifests an intent not to accept the terms of the
Royalty-Free License as offered by the licensor".

I had raised my concerns regarding this in relation to open source
implementors yesterday, but no one from the W3C has clarified this as

I agree with Daniel, and numerous others. RAND has no place in web

Jason Antony
Received on Tuesday, 9 October 2001 23:49:34 UTC

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