- From: Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2014 17:19:55 +0100
- To: Dariel Marlow <dmarlow@gmail.com>
- Cc: public-device-apis@w3.org
Hi Dariel, On mer., 2014-02-05 at 07:37 -0800, Dariel Marlow wrote: > Dominique, thank you for the feedback! I have two employers and > several personal ambitions. That is why I decided to leave that > information out. However, I don't mind sharing if it's of any use. I'm > currently employed by Syncromatics and Degreed > (http://www.linkedin.com/pub/dariel-marlow/40/559/179). Thanks, that's helpful! > I'm not sure I understand what you mean about rechartering. Do you > mean what currently has been defined in the deliverables or > milestones? If you could elaborate on that (for my understanding), I > would appreciate it. W3C Working Groups operate under a charter that determines which work items they can work on. The reason why they are limited to the list of items in their charter is that W3C Members that join a Working Group commit to license under Royalty-Free terms any patent that they may have that is essential to the implementation of the specs from that group. In other terms, adding a new spec to a group requires to check that W3C Members (esp. the ones that participate in the said Working Group) are agreeable to the expanded scope; depending on the topic of the said spec, that expansion might be a pure administrative matter, or a complete IPR nightmare :) I hope that clarifies this a bit; you can read more about the W3C patent policy at http://www.w3.org/2004/02/05-patentsummary.html > I shared this proposal with the royalty-free license in mind; I only > wish the specification to be adopted. Thank you for pointing out the > Mozilla and Google implementations of this, I had no idea they had > something similar. If now they could only adopt this in a more > standardized way for their consumer centric web browsers, I would be > satisfied. > > If there are other proposals that are better starting places, I'm all > for it. I concur with your recommendation to get more feedback to > gauge interest. Let's see what others in the thread think. Thank you > for your feedback and time. It is very much appreciated. Thanks for starting this thread; and let's hope we can build momentum around the idea. Dom
Received on Wednesday, 5 February 2014 16:20:10 UTC