- From: Jason Antony <s1118355@student.gu.edu.au>
- Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 13:26:43 +1000
- To: www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org
- CC: Daniel Phillips <phillips@bonn-fries.net>, Jeffrey Zeldman <jeffrey@zeldman.com>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 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 yet. Cheers Jason -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (MingW32) - WinPT 0.4.0 Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE7w7+Ido4suhfO5Y4RAr0iAJ9Fhr3cD/Nq2QrDqW2PpL+xxa8XrACfUKeu x5gF7CCHtCxM7kaOWNbHhNE= =8wIr -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- P.S.: This GPG key is temporary. Also, word wrap may screw it up like it did my last two messages.
Received on Tuesday, 9 October 2001 23:57:45 UTC