- From: F J Franklin <F.J.Franklin@sheffield.ac.uk>
- Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2001 14:38:13 +0100 (BST)
- To: www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org
- cc: Daniel Phillips <phillips@bonn-fries.net>
On Sat, 6 Oct 2001, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> My interpretation is that, according to this proposal, no Recommendation would
> be finalized if it was considered to be subject to claims of a member's patent
> for which an RF license has not been offered.
If RAND licensing is inevitable, then at a minimum I want to know exactly
which parts of the specification are covered, and exactly what the
licensing terms are.
However, I am deeply unhappy with the idea that RAND licensing may be
inevitable, and I believe that the W3C has the power (though perhaps not
the legal authority?) to insist on RF licensing in all open standards.
I suspect that the PPF will be ratified regardless of its furious
rejection by the open source / free software community. If it is, then I
hope that, at *least*, Chris Lilley's amendments are incorporated.
Unhappy,
Francis James Franklin
Deep in the human unconsciousness is a pervasive need for a logical
universe that makes sense. But the real universe is always one step
beyond logic.
--- from `The Sayings of Muad'dib' by the Princess Irulan
Received on Saturday, 6 October 2001 09:38:14 UTC