W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org > January 2003

Section 3 of the W3C's proposed patent policy

From: markem <markem@mail.ev1.net>
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 19:39:59 -0600
Message-Id: <200212301939.AA80543874@mail.ev1.net>
To: <www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org>

I would like to voice my opinion on Section 3 of the W3C's
proposed patent policy.  After reading through Section 3 I believe
that since the W3C is setting policy for the internet and since
the internet, as a whole, is loosely based on freedom (and
especially the freedom not to have to pay someone each and every
time a piece of software is executed - such as a web browser),
that the Royalty-Free Licensing Requirements are not designed with
this in mind.

As a standards body overseeing the worlds largest number of free
people (even those living in restricted countries such as China
still are free to roam whereever in China they wish) it behoves
the W3C to renouce any and all business propositions which would
bring the issue of money to the table.  Let businesses be
businesses and let the W3C tend to the needs of the people.  Thus,
if a business wants to lease or license it's software - let it do
so some where else.  The W3C should, like the industry group which
sets policy for memory chips, not allow any patented software to
be included in its own software unless any licenses or
restrictions are waived by those who want their licenses adopted
as a standard.  Not only this, but the W3C should encourage,
motivate, aid, and struggle to achieve the ability of anyone,
anywhere, to modify, recompile, change, adapt, or in any other way
make modifications to the originally submitted software so that
software may grow, adapt to change, adopt new methods, and respond
to the ever changing needs of the W3C community and those to whom
the W3C engenders aid.

No royalties should have to be paid to anyone unless it be from
one business to another.  Individuals who, through their own
efforts, want to make changes should be encouraged to do so and
not denied the right to post those changes to whatever medium they
wish to do so.  For what one person sees as a need may, to the
holder of the patent, be deemed unworthy.  Thus, by restricting
the rights of those who are affected by a piece of software, the
W3C lends credence to the fact that only the license holder is
smart enough to know what is right and what is wrong.  This has
been shown numerous times in the past that this is not so and the
W3C would be wise to deny anyone the right to say only they may
say whether or not a piece of software can or will change.  This
is not to say that we need pandemonium.  Structure - yes.  But a
structure which is flexible enough to allow anyone a chance to
make not only contributions to the community, but to be able to
effect change on their own.

I realize that, for many, this is a fearsome task.  This freedom
asked for to change things at will.  But freedom is essential if
we are to continue moving forwards.  Please reconsider Section 3
so that changes may be made without repercussions.  Make it so
that any software granted to the W3C must be open, without
royalties, or rules which will hinder our movement forwards into
the future.

Thank you for your consideration,

Mark Manning
 

________________________________________________________________
Sent via the EV1 webmail system at mail.ev1.net


 
                   
Received on Tuesday, 7 January 2003 16:03:06 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 April 2010 00:13:50 GMT