- From: Carr, Wayne <wayne.carr@intel.com>
- Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2011 19:59:54 +0000
- To: Aryeh Gregor <ayg@aryeh.name>
- CC: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>, Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
I think this isn't the right forum for this discussion, but just to clarify one part. >> There isn't a separation between technical contents and legal stages - they are necessarily in synch. > Why? Some organizations have no explicit patent obligations. Some have obligations that apply only to one's own contributions (not to the whole Work). For W3C, the obligation is for all WG Members for the whole specification (not just their contributions to it). Since they will be obligated for the contributions of others, there are periods where WG members are permitted to opt-out specific patent claims (to say they won't license them). Those periods are after the first formal public draft and after Last Call. That means they get a last chance to opt out patent claims that apply to new content after the last substantive change to the draft (since Last Call repeats if there are further substantive changes). That's why there is necessary relationship between the technical content of the drafts and the legal phases for opt out. It sounds like some people don't like that. What you get out of it is all WG Members agree to license essential patent claims for the whole specification, not just for what they contributed themselves. Other organizations that either have no patent obligations at all or that restrict obligations to one's own contributions (not the whole spec) have narrower patent grants. It isn't just arbitrary overhead; it's to enable the broader patent grants.
Received on Monday, 12 September 2011 20:00:29 UTC