- From: Charles Stewart <cas@linearity.org>
- Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2001 14:09:47 -0400
- To: www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org
I am a post-doctoral researcher in computer science at the Technische Universitaet, Berlin[1]. My applied interests include especially the following: 1. Fine grained interoperability between Java and UNIX/C. 2. Distributed computing. 3. Visual programming In each of these areas, standards developed by the W3C and technologies developed in the open source community make crucial contributions to projects in which I am involved [2]. Thus it is of practical importance to me that relevant standards developed by the W3C do not discriminate against open source developers. I am concerned about the IP policy proposed, currently working draft "W3C Patent Policy Framework" [3], which would allow W3C standards to depend upon patents. The original proposal has been modified in respect to permitting W3C standards to depend only upon patents that are "RAND" (Reasonable And Non Discriminatory, defined section 4 of [3]); while I agree with the reasoning that a RAND-based IP policy is clearly superior to the IP policy vacuum that exists now [4], I do not think the proposal as it stands now is acceptable, since, as demonstrated by Bruce Perens [5], RAND is incompatible with the Open Source definition, unless it is also "RF" (ie. standards may only depend upon Royalty Free patents, also from [3]). I have followed with close interest the debate on this proposal, both due to my personal interests described above, and due to the clear importance of the role that open source projects have played and continue to play in putting innovative WWW technologies into practice. Whilst my strong preference is for an RF-based IP policy, I understand that this alternative will face difficult challenges in finding acceptance. I think, however, even the discriminatory effects of a RAND-based policy would be alleviated if: 1. "RAND" was either (i) Changed to include an exemption for open source projects, under all or a reasonable subset of licenses that satisfy the open source definition [6]. or (ii) renamed to something that is not misleading as to the fact that what is now called RAND is discriminatory to open source projects. I suggest "RAWLD" (Reasonable And With Limited Discrimination). 2. There was a preference for RF-only proposals over RAND/RAWLD proposals. In particular, the W3C should formally recognise a distinction between core and niche technologies, and insist upon RF-based patents only in core projects. 3. There is a process introduced whereby an especially-formed open source interest group is able to include an appendix to any discriminatory W3C standards, commenting on: (i) possible monopoly risks of relevant patents. (ii) possible unencumbered alternative technologies. The content of this commentary should not require the approval of the W3C membership or of the participants proposing the standard; if necessary the commentary would read as a `dissenting opinion' to the standard. I think it would be a mistake with serious adverse consequences for the mission of the W3C for a RAND-based IP policy to be adopted with no attempts to be made to alleviate its discriminatory effects. I thank the W3C for extending the consultation period, and I look forward with great interest to the results of this process. Dr. Charles Stewart Technische Universitaet, Berlin References A copy of this letter is available at: http://www.linearity.org/cas/letters/W3C-RAND-consultation [1] Academic home page: http://www.linearity.org/cas [2] Such as the following development projects and (a) The AGG project: http://tfs.cs.tu-berlin.de/agg/ (b) XML based representtions for graph transformation: http://tfs.cs.tu-berlin.de/projekte/gxl-gtxl.html (c) The GenGEd project: http://cs.tu-berlin.de/~genged (d) The NLGR system: http://www.linearity.org/linear/papers/wp1.ps.gz [3] W3C Proposal: http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/WD-patent-policy-20010816/ [4] Argued in the second objection to the original draft: http://www.w3.org/2001/08/ppwg-fo1-14Aug2001.html Bruce Perens is the principal author of the Open Source Definition. [5] Peren's argument: http://www.advogato.org/article/348.html [6] A summary of open source licenses can be found at: http://perens.com/OSD.html The set of licenses should be compatible with major open source projects such as Apache and Mozilla.
Received on Thursday, 11 October 2001 14:09:48 UTC