- From: Daniel Phillips <phillips@bonn-fries.net>
- Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2001 02:00:06 +0100
- To: <djweitzner@w3.org>, <www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org>
On November 21, 2001 10:18 pm, Daniel Weitzner wrote: > Following the recent W3C Advisory Committee meeting, the Patent Policy > Working Group was given the following action item. > > An action item to the PPWG: > > We have heard a continuum of views about what the goal of our patent policy > should be: from an exclusively RF policy to one that prefers RF but allows > RAND. There is significant support for requiring that all W3C > Recommendations have RF licensing. There is also concern from a number of > Members that not all W3C Recommendations can be completed without RAND > licensing provisions. Yes, but isn't that exactly what we, the public, have loudly and unambiguously asked for? That the W3C not complete *any* standards that would entail RAND licensing? > Based on this input the PPWG should develop as a first priority a process > for producing RF Recommendations -- an RF Patent Policy. This is excellent news. > In recognition of > the fact that a number of Members do appear reluctant to abandon a RAND > track altogether, the PPWG will offer the AC further discussion of a RAND > track with responses to the issues raised here and in the Last Call > commments supporting a RAND option. The sooner the RAND track is abandoned, the sooner W3C gets its good name back. > Note -- this does NOT mean that W3C has made final decision in favor of a > RF-only policy, nor does it mean that we have made a final determination > about the role RAND licensing will play. The final decision about W3C's > patent policy will be made after the PPWG has developed a new proposal, the > public has had another chance to comment, and the W3C membership has had > it's chance to express its views formally to the Director. Thanks for the update. -- Daniel
Received on Wednesday, 21 November 2001 19:58:00 UTC