- From: Timothy Rue <timrue@mindspring.com>
- Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 11:40:57 -0700
- To: www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org
[Moderator note: This mail was sent To: "Seth Johnson" <seth.johnson@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> and cc'd to djweitzner@w3.org, C-FIT_Community@RealMeasures.dyndns.org, C-FIT_Release_Community@RealMeasures.dyndns.org, fairuse-discuss@mrbrklyn.com, patents@aful.org, fsl-discuss@alt.org, developers@dotgnu.org, lists@consulting.net.nz, www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org] On 09-Jul-02 22:20:32 Seth Johnson <seth.johnson@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> wrote: SJ> In October of last year, Daniel Weitzner, Chair of the W3C's SJ> Patent Policy Working Group, was presented with numerous, SJ> specific and crucial questions and comments which had been SJ> raised by the act of considering a W3C policy supporting SJ> royalty licensed and patented protocols for the World Wide SJ> Web. SJ> At that time, the W3C received a profound, broad expression SJ> of popular support for their not undertaking this direction, SJ> despite the pressure being brought on the organizations from SJ> parties seeking to get W3C endorsement for royalty-based SJ> protocols. SJ> The issue is returning once again, by means of back door SJ> "exception" proposals. [snip] Why does this sort of act, which seems to happen alot, remind me of a spoiled child that doesn't seem to understand the word "no"? --- Timothy Rue Email @ mailto:timrue@mindspring.com Web @ http://www.mindspring.com/~timrue/
Received on Wednesday, 10 July 2002 14:41:00 UTC