- From: Carr, Wayne <wayne.carr@intel.com>
- Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2012 20:32:29 +0000
- To: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>, "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>
>finished, and easier to watch quietly while someone else includes material that a >troll knows they cover with IP, then walk away leaving the spec effectively >unimplementable for anyone who doesn't license the IP - and without anyone >even knowing, since there isn't the requirement to identify or exclude anything. Anyone know why there aren't disclosure obligations for Member of CGs? (why members of a CG don't have personal knowledge disclosure requirements similar to those for any W3C member reading any TR draft.) >-----Original Message----- >From: Charles McCathieNevile [mailto:chaals@opera.com] >Sent: Monday, March 12, 2012 10:24 AM >To: public-w3process@w3.org; Charles McCathieNevile >Subject: Re: Patent Policy issues... > >After a bit of noodling with Art, he motivated the following thoughts. > >On Tue, 06 Mar 2012 13:16:35 +0100, Charles McCathieNevile ><chaals@opera.com> wrote: > >> On Tue, 06 Mar 2012 13:02:12 +0100, Arthur Barstow >> <art.barstow@nokia.com> wrote: >> (in another thread - http://www.w3.org/mid/4F55FCC4.3090601@nokia.com >> ff) >> >>> So among the problems I see are: >> >>> PAGs suck (time, resources, joy from the WG, etc.); the PP takes too >>> many resources to implement for me as an AC rep and our IP >>> department; the totality of the PP for WGs plus the CG's two patent >>> policies are at least one patent policy too many. >> >> Raised ISSUE-4 on this. >... >>> Proposed solution #2 -> drop the PP for WGs and move WGs to use the >>> CG patent policies >> >> If we don't have agreement to get to "finished", that still causes >> problems... the CG process has some benefits, but also some drawbacks. > >Under the current WG policy, members participating are bound to make a >commitment to the final product. Under the CG policy, the commitment only >exends to contributions from the member, with there being a seperate step >allowing them to commit to the finished spec. A plus for this is that it could allow >a member who has useful contributions to be in the group, without having to >hand over IP they don't want to talk about. > >My concern (because I think getting as much RF commitment as possible is a >really really important goal) is that it is fairly easy to make sure the spec is not >finished, and easier to watch quietly while someone else includes material that a >troll knows they cover with IP, then walk away leaving the spec effectively >unimplementable for anyone who doesn't license the IP - and without anyone >even knowing, since there isn't the requirement to identify or exclude anything. > >There are nice features about the CG appraoch, like a conditional license to >implement when the spec is in development (which is important is you want to >get tests developed and passed). I think this should be explored further... > >But it depends on what the W3C membership at large want to do, and without a >lot of motivation they might just let sleeping dogs lie... > >cheers > >-- >Charles 'chaals' McCathieNevile Opera Software, Standards Group > je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg kan litt norsk >http://my.opera.com/chaals Try Opera: http://www.opera.com
Received on Monday, 12 March 2012 20:34:05 UTC