- From: Brock Frazier <eight_string@yahoo.com>
- Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2001 20:10:36 -0700 (PDT)
- To: www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org
To whom it may concern: 1. I object to RAND or any other non-RF license for Internet standards. 2. Standards in general are good. They give a basis for interaction and exchange of data. Unfortunately, by allowing the acceptance of standards which are not free, truly free software can not exist in compliance, and thus cannot conform to the standard. Proprietary software outside of patent holders will many times be forced to pay royalties for compliance, giving incentive to deviate from any standard with RAND. This situation is not to the advantage of the W3C, nor free software, nor the majority of proprietary software vendors. Software, regardless of licensing model, should be able to comply with standards. The W3C has done some excellent work. Please do not tarnish and diminish your future work with non-free standards. I was very surprised and disappointed to read about RAND and didn't believe that it could be anything like the initial report I read. I went to w3c.org for the details, only to find that what I had read was true. Free/Open software has in large been your most loyal and standards-compliant base out there. This same base will not be able to comply with standards requiring royalties. By allowing RAND, you will be turning away many of those who have followed W3C recommendations and created compliant software. I'm very disappointed that the Patent Policy Framework as written has made it this far. I hope reason will prevail. Keep Internet standards free and open. Reject the Patent Policy Framework. -Brock Frazier Boise, Idaho USA __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals. http://personals.yahoo.com
Received on Thursday, 11 October 2001 23:10:39 UTC