- From: Geoffrey Sneddon <foolistbar@googlemail.com>
- Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 16:11:57 +0000
On 11 Dec 2007, at 13:36, Maik Merten wrote: > > The old wording was a SHOULD requirement. No MUST. If the big > players don't want to take the perceived risk (their decision) > they'd still be 100% within the spec. Thus I fail to see why there > was need for action. There's a question within the W3C Process whether patents that are covered by a SHOULD via a reference are granted a RF license similarly to anything that MUST be implemented. Both Nokia and MS raised concerns about this relating to publishing the spec as a FPWD. -- Geoffrey Sneddon <http://gsnedders.com/>
Received on Tuesday, 11 December 2007 08:11:57 UTC