W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xkms-ws@w3.org > August 2001

RE: Proposed Activity Proposal, Charter

From: PATO,JOE (HP-PaloAlto,ex1) <joe_pato@hp.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2001 14:44:51 -0700
Message-ID: <AE5322A8186ED311A0CF009027403BC4087DADCA@xpa01.corp.hp.com>
To: "'Hallam-Baker, Phillip'" <pbaker@verisign.com>, "'Joseph Reagle'" <reagle@w3.org>, Blair Dillaway <blaird@microsoft.com>
Cc: www-xkms-ws@w3.org
To be clear, HP would like to see the product of the XKMS WG be available
with RF licensing terms. The RAND terminology in the note was exactly as
Phil suggests - a product of insufficient time to clear our internal
process.

- joe

-----Original Message-----
From: Hallam-Baker, Phillip [mailto:pbaker@verisign.com]
Sent: Monday, August 20, 2001 3:47 PM
To: 'Joseph Reagle'; Blair Dillaway; Hallam-Baker, Phillip
Cc: www-xkms-ws@w3.org
Subject: RE: Proposed Activity Proposal, Charter


> 
> B. Unstated terms for derivative works and RAND License for patents:
> Baltimore Technologies, Hewlett-Packard Company, 
> International Business 
> Machines Corporation, IONA Technologies, PureEdge

The significant point here is that the invention was by VeriSign,
Microsoft, webMethods and Citigroup. The only other company directly
involved in the design stage was nanobiz which VRSN has now bought.

Baltimore, IBM, HP etc wanted to support the proposal but the
overhead of checking their IPR is high and would not have been
completed in time for the Note submission.

I have no problems putting an RF statement in the charter, but
I am not going to draft it. Does the W3C have an RF statement
from elsewhere that we can plug in?
Received on Monday, 20 August 2001 17:45:03 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 13:51:38 EDT