RE: The Open Source Initiative OSI letter of comment on W3C's proposed RAND policy.

This is insane!  Saying that I, as a holder of intellectual property, lose
my rights because *you* decided to give away *your* code is nonsensical.

How about this: I decide to let people live in my house for free; therefore,
you must give away your house.


Am I a proponent of RAND?  No.  I was one of only three AC Reps that voted
against RAND.  However, arguments such as the one below does not help the
cause.

--
- Eric

-----Original Message-----
From: www-voice-request@w3.org [mailto:www-voice-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of
Brett Serkez, Techie
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2001 7:01 PM
To: vxi-discuss@metronomicon.com; www-voice@w3.org
Subject: The Open Source Initiative OSI letter of comment on W3C's proposed
RAND policy.


Eric S. Raymond's official position on W3C's RAND policy...

http://opensource.org/press_releases/w3c.html

[snip]

OSI suggests that the proposed clause 5 can be rescued by adding a suitable
interpretation of "non-discriminatory". The language in the State of
Maryland UCITA exempting open-source projects from warranty requirements
provides a suitable model:
The payment of royalties under a RAND license shall be waived for any
licensor of a computer program that is provided under a license that does
not impose a license fee for the right to the source code, to make copies,
to modify, and to distribute the computer program.
This interpretation of "non-discriminatory" would leave patent-holders the
option of continuing to collect license fees from implementors with plans to
charge for the secrecy of their software.



opensource.org home page