- From: Andreas Mohr <a.mohr@mailto.de>
- Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2001 11:12:01 +0200
- To: www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org
Hello, I'd like to make sure that you know that I'm concerned about your current development of the RAND license. Even though RAND includes the "non-discriminating" term, having internet parts sanctioned by W3C which might be patented, non-RF could potentially have devastating effects. If not everybody is allowed to implement a version of this standard on its own for free, then I still consider this to be discriminating. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ It's my sincere belief that all public (internet) infrastructure should be open, non-discriminating and, most importantly, implementable by *everyone*. The internet infrastructure has become such an integral part of daily life of millions of people that having certain non-free parts at the core would be detrimental. The W3C has always been about ratification of open, public standards. And as internet use has rapidly increased, the W3C should be concentrating more, not less, on ensuring that all core parts remain open. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Look e.g. at the Microsoft Word .doc fiasco for the results of having a so-called "industry standard", simply due to Word's wide use. There are tons of good, usable office suites out there, yet none are deemed suitable due to their limited support for a so-called "industry standard". And they can't support it properly since it's non-free. This is an example of a very widely used means of communication which is discriminating against certain people. And this is probably what RAND might encourage to a certain extent, which is why I'm concerned about RAND. -- Andreas Mohr Stauferstr. 6, D-71272 Renningen, Germany
Received on Sunday, 30 September 2001 05:12:31 UTC