- From: Daniel Phillips <phillips@bonn-fries.net>
- Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2001 13:23:09 +0200
- To: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>, www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org
On October 4, 2001 02:00 pm, Chris Lilley wrote: > > Interestingly, the timing of the SVG 1.0 release seems to be closely > > correlated with the proposed change to W3C's patent policy currently being > > discussed. > > Yes. We were indeed beta testing the patent policy before it was > publically released. But the fact remains that the SVG standard was formalized before the patent policy on which it relies was formally adopted. You have not explained why the SVG standard acceptance could not have been delayed until the patent policy revision was completed. Having jumped the gun, you created the impression of surreptitious intent. > > So, the SVG standard was formalized and includes RAND licencing > > arrangements even though RAND licencing was not an official W3C policy at > > the time. > > Right. RF is better than RAND, but RAND is better than "nothing at all" > which would have been the situation had we not done that. No, you are wrong. A patent-encumbered internet standard is far worse for the public than no standard at all. A patent-encumbered internet standard enshrines the right of a patent holder to charge a toll on the internet. It is much better to write a new standard that is not encumbered by patents, and it must be the responsibility of the W3C to do exactly that. You appear to be trying to evade that responsibility. -- Daniel
Received on Friday, 5 October 2001 07:23:04 UTC