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

Re: A query about RF

From: Jason Antony <s1118355@student.gu.edu.au>
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 14:28:51 +1000
To: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
CC: www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org
Message-ID: <3BC6FE1F.2680.D460AC@localhost>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


Hi Chris

According to the W3C list server, it's already the 12th, hope this goes
through. But - thanks for clearing my doubts.

Will the comment period be extended?

Here's hoping you will take our feedback into account, and steer the next
WD towards a realistic direction.

All the best
Jason Antony


Chris Lilley wrote:
> 
> Jason Antony wrote:
> 
> >  <quote>
> > 3.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. </quote>
> 
> > My query is: what if a licensor offers its technology on the proviso
> > that it cannot be used on opensource operating systems, for instance?
> > Will a port to that platform violate the license and render them liable
> > for damages?
> 
> Two separate issues. First, you missed the intent of this clause, and
> second, you added a 'what if' clause which cannot apply.
> 
> To deal with the first - this clause means that the RF license only
> applies to those who give an RF license as well and do not break the
> terms of the RF license (which is a RAND license with zero fees). That
> means that
> 
> a) anyone giving a RAND license is at a disadvantage - the RF license of
> the licensor does not apply to them; they have to negotiate their
> licenses (possibly involving fees) for what everyone else is getting for
> free.
> 
> b) anyone sueing the licensor for patent infringement related to the spec
> in question breaks the license and thus, the RF terms no longer apply to
> them.
> 
> So in other words, clause 3 is a good thing.
> 
> Second - you asked what if  a licensor offers its technology on the
> proviso
> that it cannot be used on opensource operating systems? Well in that case
> it is neither an W3C RF license nor a W3C RAND license, but is some other
> license and you should ask them. Please see the clause 6 of the RAND
> license:
> 
> > 6. may not impose any further conditions or restrictions on 
>     the use of any technology, intellectual property rights, 
>     or other restrictions on behavior of the licensee,[...]
> 
> Then see the definition of RF license
> 
>  "shall have the same characteristics as a RAND License, except that"
> 
> Since clauses one two and three of the exceptions do not invalidate
> clause 6, it applies to RF licenses as well.
> 
> Thus, it is not possible for a W3C RF or RAND license to include the
> restriction that you mentioned.
> 
> -- 
> Chris


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (MingW32) - WinPT 0.4.0
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iD8DBQE7xnE/do4suhfO5Y4RAm/kAJ94U+NMm9IJtfhpY1l9k6RVjmPB3wCfd2K/
YV2GN/hHH06j4zX3R1b421s=
=ljTj
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Friday, 12 October 2001 00:29:22 GMT

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