W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > October 2002

RE: Proposal for issue 327

From: Champion, Mike <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 14:11:34 -0600
Message-ID: <9A4FC925410C024792B85198DF1E97E40422541D@usmsg03.sagus.com>
To: xml-dist-app@w3.org



> -----Original Message-----
> From: rayw@netscape.com [mailto:rayw@netscape.com]
> Sent: Monday, October 07, 2002 3:47 PM
> To: David Fallside
> Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Proposal for issue 327
> 

> But I think the WG should be the first line of 
> defense.  I  could be understanding something wrong here, though.


> I think that the WG must try to receive more information from 
> those who think they have IP that is applicable and try to resolve the
problem. 

For what it's worth, we're wrestling with a related issue in the WSA group
(and the WS CG) -- not IP per se, but getting the cooperation (or statement
of unwillingness to do so) of the authors of a technology specification that
has not been Submitted to the W3C in making it available to a W3C WG.  The
way forward that seems to make the most sense (after a few weeks of public
and private discussions) is for the W3C Management to seek the information
from the stakeholders. The results will available to the WG for *technical*
contingency planning, and to the W3C Director and Advisory Committee for
ultimate decisions on how to trade off the technical, legal, and "political"
issues.

Something similar seems the best way forward here -- let the people who
understand the legalistic, uhh, smelly stuff do what they know how to do,
let the WG deal with the technical issues, and let the decision makers
decide on the basis of both inputs.
That may be to send the problem back to the WG to work around.  That would
be a rotten situation ... but frankly, the company that forced us into that
situation would get so much bad publicity IMHO that I can't imagine the
value of the IP outweighing it.  
Received on Monday, 7 October 2002 16:12:06 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:11 GMT