Re: Is there a way out?

Your post suggest the pleading of a slave!  Why not adopt open source
and leave the commerical vendors out of the standards.


Patents curtail progress, serve to reinstitute the feudal system and to
redistribute the wealth to the few.  Unlike tangible assets, patents have
no boundaries, they operate through the long arm of the law as enforced
monopolies, to regulate and control human behavior, and they serve as an
undemocratic, hidden tax imposed on all who participate in one or more of
the societies of our earth.

sterling
On Wed, 24 Jul 2002, Gary Lea wrote:

> 
> Dear All,
> 
> In the particular context of W3C's work and history, I can really understand
> why people are upset about any possible move away from RF and towards RAND
> licensing but you have to bear in mind the broader context i.e. that many
> international and national technical standards organizations have already
> had to permit some variant on this option for many years (e.g. ANSI, ITU,
> etc., etc.) just in order to survive in the face of the growth of
> consortia/trade association/industry association-based standards development
> bodies.
> 
> More importantly, it has to be acknowledged that it is not just a question
> of a brightline RF/RAND either/or and that there is no single model for
> RAND: there is no legal or policy reason why a sui generis W3C licence
> scheme could not be devised under which, even if some license fee is
> permitted (low/controlled as desired), you could bar the licensor from
> performing audits (completely/save in exceptional circumstances as defined)
> or demanding use of their products (that would probably be product tying and
> illegal anyway) or any other of the evils listed on this board.
> 
> At the end of the day, be clear about what is at stake here: if a decent
> compromise is not found between public and private interests, W3C could be
> bypassed by private sector standards developers and just left to wither on
> the vine. It deserves better than that.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Gary Lea
>

Received on Thursday, 25 July 2002 02:32:16 UTC