- From: Karsten M. Self <kmself@ix.netcom.com>
- Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2001 15:13:33 -0700
- To: www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org
- Cc: Scott Peterson <scott_k_peterson@hp.com>
- Message-ID: <20010930151333.C15576@navel.introspect>
I'm adding my voice to those which are being raised in adamant opposition to proposed changes in W3C's patent licensing policies to allow RAND -- so-called "reasonable and non-discriminatory" -- licensing practices of technologies implementing W3C standards. Though I was in fact somewhat tuned into the possibility of such changes in a meeting with Scott Peterson of Hewlett-Packard at the beginning of this month (Sept 1), the draft itself was not mentioned, nor did I see specific mention of it until the past 24 hours. First: in light of the extraordinary events of the past month, it seems only reasonable that the review period of the draft be extended by at least an additional month. Many of us have had our lives disrupted, or been otherwise distracted. Scott's own company had embarked on a major transition announced Sept. 3, and the events of the 11th have been felt worldwide. Second: there appears to have been little or no attempt by the W3C to publicize the draft. A Google search on "w3c patent policy framework" doesn't return the draft itself within the first 60 results, nor any news stories. Prominent free software sites, including Slashdot, LinuxToday, NewsForge, Linux Weekly News, Advogato, and others, have no mention of the policy draft, despite its clear impacts on free software and GNU/Linux. A search of mainstream and technical news sites similarly nets no announcements. Such a failure to publicize issues of clear public impact severely risks marginalizing W3C, and raises serious questions of the W3C's credibility. As Brad Templeton has noted, there's a thin line between a standards organization and a cartel. The W3C would be well advised to examine itself to determine if its fundamental nature is being subverted, and whether the intent of these actions are to divert, or destroy, the organization. It's a well known fact of this industry that there are those who would prefer that standards were held by a small set of organizations, or by only one. This is simply not an acceptable state of affairs. Third: The comments of Alan Cox, noted linux kernel hacker, are well put. I agree with them, and refer you to: http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2001-09-30-010-20-OP-CY Simply: "non-discriminatory" and "conditioned on payment of...royalties or fees" are exclusive terms. It's recognized that a large portion of existing Internet infrastructure is based on free software. A plurality of hosts are based on the open POSIX architecture (Unix, GNU/Linux, and FreeBSD, and others). The majority of webservers (according to monthly Netcraft surveys) are based on Apache. Other standards, from domain names, to mail, to Usenet, to instant messaging, are built on or include free software implementations. The free software model does not provide a mechanism for fee or royalty collection as envisioned by RAND. RAND is discriminatory to the core infrastructures of the existing Internet. Fourth: I note that affiliations listed for the working group include Hewlett Packard, Microsoft, Phillips, and Apple. I see no representation from the free software community. Where is your representation from GNU/Linux? From the FSF? From the Open Source Initiative? From the Apache Foundation? From Sendmail? If the W3C purports to represent standards as implemented on an open Internet, it is a sham. I request the following remedies: - Discussion of the draft be opened for a minimum of one additional month, and preferably two months, to extend through at least Nov. 30, 2001, and preferably Dec 21, 2001. - The proposed standards be widely publicized via existing discussion sites and media outlets, to include those mentioned above. - The W3C adopt a policy of requiring RF licensing of all technologies relating to adopted standards, exclusively. - That the W3C immediately submit to a review of its policies for announcing, publicizing, and reviewing standard drafts. My list of reviewer candidates would include Ed Foster of InfoWorld, Dan Gillmor of the San Jose Mercury News, John Gilmore of the EFF, Thomas Greene of The Register, Tim O'Reilly of O'Reilly & Assoc., Lawrence Lessig of Stanford University, and Brad Templeton of the EFF. Peace. -- Karsten M. Self <kmself@ix.netcom.com> http://kmself.home.netcom.com/ What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand? Home of the brave http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/ Land of the free Free Dmitry! Boycott Adobe! Repeal the DMCA! http://www.freesklyarov.org Geek for Hire http://kmself.home.netcom.com/resume.html
Received on Sunday, 30 September 2001 18:13:39 UTC