- From: Jason Antony <s1118355@student.gu.edu.au>
- Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 14:28:51 +1000
- To: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- CC: www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi Chris According to the W3C list server, it's already the 12th, hope this goes through. But - thanks for clearing my doubts. Will the comment period be extended? Here's hoping you will take our feedback into account, and steer the next WD towards a realistic direction. All the best Jason Antony Chris Lilley wrote: > > Jason Antony wrote: > > > <quote> > > 3.shall not be considered accepted by an implementer who manifests an > > intent not to accept the terms of the Royalty-Free License as offered > > by the licensor. </quote> > > > My query is: what if a licensor offers its technology on the proviso > > that it cannot be used on opensource operating systems, for instance? > > Will a port to that platform violate the license and render them liable > > for damages? > > Two separate issues. First, you missed the intent of this clause, and > second, you added a 'what if' clause which cannot apply. > > To deal with the first - this clause means that the RF license only > applies to those who give an RF license as well and do not break the > terms of the RF license (which is a RAND license with zero fees). That > means that > > a) anyone giving a RAND license is at a disadvantage - the RF license of > the licensor does not apply to them; they have to negotiate their > licenses (possibly involving fees) for what everyone else is getting for > free. > > b) anyone sueing the licensor for patent infringement related to the spec > in question breaks the license and thus, the RF terms no longer apply to > them. > > So in other words, clause 3 is a good thing. > > Second - you asked what if a licensor offers its technology on the > proviso > that it cannot be used on opensource operating systems? Well in that case > it is neither an W3C RF license nor a W3C RAND license, but is some other > license and you should ask them. Please see the clause 6 of the RAND > license: > > > 6. may not impose any further conditions or restrictions on > the use of any technology, intellectual property rights, > or other restrictions on behavior of the licensee,[...] > > Then see the definition of RF license > > "shall have the same characteristics as a RAND License, except that" > > Since clauses one two and three of the exceptions do not invalidate > clause 6, it applies to RF licenses as well. > > Thus, it is not possible for a W3C RF or RAND license to include the > restriction that you mentioned. > > -- > Chris -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (MingW32) - WinPT 0.4.0 Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE7xnE/do4suhfO5Y4RAm/kAJ94U+NMm9IJtfhpY1l9k6RVjmPB3wCfd2K/ YV2GN/hHH06j4zX3R1b421s= =ljTj -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Friday, 12 October 2001 00:29:22 UTC