- From: Ilya Volynets <ilya@theIlya.com>
- Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2001 11:21:13 -0700
- To: "PETERSON,SCOTT K \(HP-USA,ex1\)" <scott_k_peterson@hp.com>
- Cc: www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Everything is rather simple in real life. Standard endorsed by W3C is one to most likely be accepted by Internet community and become significant part of infrastructure. Nothing else really matters at this point in time. This is THE reason why W3C is so important to Internet development today. If original standard developer and patent holder doesn't have incentive to make use of standard royaltee-free, he most likely won't. W3C was one of most significant such incentives. Non-royalty-free standard will not be supported by Open Source community. In the long run it means that importance of W3C endorsement on standards will diminish significantly, which in turn will hurt both Open Source development role in Internet growth, thus hurting Internet in general. Large corporations are currently putting all their might into overtaking the internet, and are right in doing so: Internet is probably only place, where people still can exercise free speech. Shutting down this "free ideas outlet" United States of Corporate America (or should I say United Corporations of the World?) will be able to get control over poeple's brain given by Radio and TV back, and keep making whatever they want of them. And getting control of Internet standards development is a first step. All of above sounds like pretentious prophesying, but I think there is some logic behind it all, and I would carefully consider, before discarding the idea :) Ilya. On Saturday 29 September 2001 10:49 am, you wrote: > Ilya -- > > How is the new policy worse for free software than the present policy? > > I invite you to consider the concept of WG licensing "modes" that is > discussed in section 5. The ability to charter a WG as an RF mode WG is a > significant improvement over how other standards bodies typically approach > the issue of essential patents. > > -- Scott > ___________________________________________________________ > Scott K. Peterson | Hewlett-Packard Company > Corporate Counsel | 1 Main St., 10th floor > email: scott_k_peterson@hp.com | Cambridge, MA 02142 > phone: 617 or telnet 679-9346 | > cell: 978-764-8615 | > fax: 617-679-9330 | > > > -----Original Message----- > From: ilya@ns2.total-knowledge.com [mailto:ilya@ns2.total-knowledge.com] > Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2001 12:51 PM > To: www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org > Subject: My opinion on new policy > > > As somebody has already stated, adoption of new policy > will cause alienation of big parts of Free Software > Community. Many (like me) will stop supporting W3C > because we don't feel it's right, many many more will > be lost a bit later, when people start running into real > problems with patents (think GIF). > Some other poster said that it's not W3C's fault and > that it is surprizing W3C didn't give in to > "patent lawyers and their friends in public bodies > and large corporations" for so long, but I don't really > care. If W3C feels need for more help for promoting open > and universal standards, just put out a call. Today there > will be even more people to hear it then ever. But > adopting such a policy is not kind of call I'd accept, > neither it is a way to help WWW to develop and make best > of itself. > Ilya. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iEYEARECAAYFAju2ESMACgkQtKh84cA8u2nG9gCcCfxFBA9K2ihrk35MxzxwVK7B 1+0Ani4U/Bq9OZfOu4dgj0OtwqMdNcWE =r+zv -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Saturday, 29 September 2001 14:21:26 UTC