- From: Daniel Phillips <phillips@bonn-fries.net>
- Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 00:16:36 +0200
- To: Jeffrey Zeldman <jeffrey@zeldman.com>, www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org
- Cc: Web Standards Steering <wspsc@webstandards.org>, list@webdesign-l.com
On October 9, 2001 11:38 pm, Jeffrey Zeldman wrote: > W3C first needs to spell out which standards (both existing and under > development) are and will remain royalty-free. Such terms as "core," > "essential," and "non-essential" must be explicitly defined, and each > definition must *list the specific standards it encompasses. > > [...] > > Likewise, if RAND licensing is truly intended to apply only to > "inessential," web standards, we need to know precisely what those > "inessential" standards are. While I find your commentary thoughtful and well written, a close reading shows it to support the idea that RAND licencing has a place in W3C standards. In the above quote you suggest that only "essential" standards should remain royalty-free. Whatever the definition of "essential" is, you are saying that GPL-licensed software should be restricted to the implementation of "essential" standards. There is an obvious way to avoid troublesome questions of which standards are essential and which are not, and who should be restricted from implementing which: remove the provisions for RAND licensing from the PPF, and rely on RF licensing instead. -- Daniel
Received on Tuesday, 9 October 2001 18:16:38 UTC