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


From: Theo de Raadt <deraadt@cvs.openbsd.org>
Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2001 13:56:57 -0600
Message-Id: <200109301956.f8UJuvl21529@cvs.openbsd.org>
To: www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org
I am disgusted.

This is exactly the type of hastles that has resulted in free
operating systems being prevented from implementing the VRRP virtual
router redundancy protocol.

It is very clear where this will go.  Once there are web protocols
that are protected in this way, free browsers will not be able to
have support for them.

note that many of us consider the "free" in a term such as "free
software" to also mean you can sell it also, if you choose, most such
licensing terms in the future therefore will not permit sale of such
free products, thus locking us out from competing with the few who are
pushing for RAND.

I know how we can fight such W3C ideas.  The minute they come up with
a patented version of a protocol, write a free one that is different.
Dilute the perfection of their idea.  Simply remove the patented parts
from it, and make an imcompatible but at the same time maximally
conflicting version, that appears to be the same thing, but has

Make their strict definitions irrelevant, since their goal with this
patent is to make strictly compliant versions impossible without

Anyone at W3C who supports this, wants there to be fewer
implementations of browsers.
Received on Sunday, 30 September 2001 15:53:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:06:43 UTC