- From: Russell McOrmond <russell@flora.ca>
- Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 16:43:04 -0500 (EST)
- To: www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org
- Cc: General Copyright Discussions <discuss@digital-copyright.ca>
I am glad that the W3C has decided to take a strong position on this issue. I can only hope that various domestic governments may eventually ignore special economic interests who are seeking inappropriate expansion of copyright (to computing interfaces) and patents (to business models and software). I would make a further suggestion to the discussion. Often a standard is only recognized as a standard if there are two compatible reference implementations. A suggestion to solidify the royalty-free patent policy might be to have the W3C require that one of these reference implementations be Free Software. This would then provide a background to ensuring that any legal impediment against a Free Software implementation of a W3C recommendation cause the reason for the impediment to be excluded from a W3C recommendation. Software patents are simply one recognized legal impediment to Free Software implementations. In this respect, I question the following: "3. may be limited to implementations of the Recommendation, and to what is required by the Recommendation;" Once a reference implementation is released to the public in the form of Free Software, is it really reasonable to expect that source code to be limited to the purposes as stated in the Recommendation? I am not a lawyer, but I suspect that this requirement might violate many Free Software licenses as it relates to derivative works. A RF license that gives special consideration to royalty-free software may be appropriate as a comprimise. IE: "3. may be limited to implementations of the Recommendation, and to what is required by the Recommendation; This would only apply to royalty-bearing implementations, and not any software under a recognized Free Software or Open Source license". Also: "9. The RF license shall be made available by the licensor as long as the Recommendation is in effect. 10. If the Recommendation is rescinded by W3C, then no new licenses need be granted but any licenses granted before the Recommendation was rescinded shall remain in effect." Once a Free Software implementation is released, how can it be revoked? This wording suggests that there would be legal impediments to possible usages of derivative works. Making previously released Free Software an infringement on a patent is a considerably dangerous landmine. Note: I realize that some members of the W3C seem to be in the business of setting software landmines to protect themselves from legitimate innovation and competition, but it would be great if the W3C created a "Landmine Treaty" for software. --- Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: <http://www.flora.ca/> See http://weblog.flora.ca/ for announcements, activities, and opinions Most recently in Toronto: Copyright or Wrong? http://www.rabble.ca/rumble/ ALERT! ISP Licensing! http://weblog.flora.org/article.php3?story_id=273
Received on Thursday, 14 November 2002 16:52:43 UTC