- From: Keith T. Kyzivat <kkyzivat@cs.uml.edu>
- Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 11:55:20 -0400 (EDT)
- To: www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org
To all W3C Committe members, Free standards are the foundation of the Internet. They contributed in the wide adoption of the internet as we see it today. Those members that are from large corporations wishing to use this newly proposed RAND policy should reconsider their stance. Take a step back and look at the history of your company. I don't believe that the Internet as we see it today would exist if it were not for the W3C only approving Royalty-Free standards. As many others posting commentary on this, it would destroy the fundamentals of the Open Source movement. As I have noticed, the W3C usually sees Open Source projects leading the way to form the first implementations (proof of concept, and initial implementations after acceptance) of W3C Standards. I will now take quote from another poster, Russ Magee, who has some choice paragraphs that sum up my other opinions: Compatibility. If a patented process is used, and organizations do not wish to license said process for some reason, an incompatible alternative to that process will likely arise; we already have too many 'standards wars' between competing organizations in the world of software. Free Software. Despite the reassuring words 'non-discriminatory licensing' mentioned in the RAND policy, who is to decide what, exactly, is a fair price? A fee of $5000 USD for a license to an algorithm, charged to everyone who wished to use it, would qualify as non-discriminatory; yet it would most certainly freeze out any developer who was writing a program as Open Source/Free Software. This policy could be used by certain motivated parties as a means to make it effectively intractable to develop W3C standard-compliant software without being backed by a large corporate body. This goes against the established principles of the Internet which have served all of us so well until today -- that of free, open standards encouraging cross-platform interoperability. It is my sincere hope that the W3C consider either of the following: 1) Discard the RAND clause completely, retaining the current view (as I understand it to be) that all patented, for-fee processes are NOT valid for consideration as W3C standards; or [resolution #2 I do not agree with, thus it has been omitted] Thank you, Keith Kyzivat Software Engineer
Received on Tuesday, 2 October 2001 11:55:26 UTC