Re: What is the "open web" ?

Le lun. 03/06/13, 08:17, Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com>:
> On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 1:22 PM, Karl Dubost <karl@la-grange.net> wrote:
> 
> >
> > Le 3 juin 2013 à 04:09, Mark Watson a écrit :
> > > So, that would exclude anything where the patent landscape was such
> > > that any performant implementation would require non-RF licenses, for
> > > example wireless Internet technology ?
> >
> > It seems an abuse of language.
> >
> > * any implementation
> > * performant implementation (a subset of any implementation)
> > * "would require non-RF licenses"
> >
> > There is nothing which is from a technology point of view requiring a
> > patent. Patents systems are here to promote a certain idea of our societies
> > infrastructures. Some people cherish it, some not.
> >
> > The W3C has adopted the RF patent policy for the same reasons to
> > allow/promote a certain idea of our society. The right to implement any Web
> > related systems without encumbrance for the developers (with or without
> > deep pockets).
> >
> 
> So, this is where I am trying to understand the diversity of opinions.
> 
> Clearly there are people who believe it's acceptable to include something
> in web standards even if it effectively requires the use of proprietary

What do you mean exactly by “effectively requires”?

> components, provided those components meet some conditions (presumably
> including being widely available on multiple platforms with some common
> functionality that can be abstracted by the web API). I expect people
> differ on what the conditions should be and I'd like to better understand
> that. I understand from your mail and a couple of others that some people
> don't believe this is acceptable under any conditions.
> 
> 
> >
> > If the "patent landscape" is such that it becomes not possible to
> > implement something with that idea as a corner stone, then we have to go
> > around [1].
> 
> 
> I think it's clear that the W3C specifications have to be implementable RF.
> I am talking about the case where those APIs rely (explicitly or
> effectively) on underlying system capabilities that are not part of the W3C
> specification.
> 
> ...Mark

The devil is in the details. How far would you consider system
capabilities to be “underlying” and thus legitimately not part of
the W3C specification?


-- 
Hugo Roy | Free Software Foundation Europe, www.fsfe.org
FSFE Legal Team, Deputy Coordinator, www.fsfe.org/legal
FSFE French Team, Coordinator, www.fsfe.org/fr/
 
Support Free Software, sign up! https://fsfe.org/support

Received on Tuesday, 4 June 2013 10:59:36 UTC