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

Re: Policy requires definitions, remedies, guarantees

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>
Message-ID: <3BC44C8E.2283.46801A@localhost>
-----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 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 April 2010 00:13:42 GMT