W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-device-apis@w3.org > February 2014

Re: Standby API Specification Proposal

From: Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2014 17:19:55 +0100
Message-ID: <1391617195.28679.195.camel@cumulustier>
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.

Received on Wednesday, 5 February 2014 16:20:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:33:05 UTC