proposed web standards

Gentlemen;

On carefull reading of this proposed new standard, I find, as an 
advocate of un-encumbered access for the free software users of the 
world, that item 3, section 3 is un-acceptable in that it has the 
potential to allow the conversion of some pieces of code to non-web use, 
and when so converted, that it then might become subject to some sort of 
a patent application which is then "backported" to the web useage also.

You cannot do this with what is commonly refered to as GPL software.  If 
its GPL, its GPL, and not legally able to be used in that manner.  I 
would expect such to be contested in the courts when it has been discovered.

Section 3, item 3, needs fixed forthwith.

I personally do not accept any terminology that brings the WWW into the 
scenario where someone attempting to collect royalties on something that 
has become in essence a defacto standard can foul up the works like the 
Unisys GIF thing did 10 years ago.  In my opinion, Unisys knew exactly 
what they were doing when they ignored that compression useage for 
almost a decade while it became thoroughly entrenched, and then 
"suddenly" discovered that everyone makeing a GIF image owed them 
royalties.  It should have been challenged in the courts, and thrown 
into the public domain based solely on their lack of enforcement up to 
that time.

-- 
Gene Heskett
gene_heskett@iolinc.net

The Windows in this house are made of see-through, breakable glass.  The 
computers all run linux, and will continue to do so for the forseeable 
future.
99.21% world ranking in Setiathome.  What are you doing with your spare 
cpu cycles?

[This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus]

Received on Wednesday, 8 January 2003 01:21:42 UTC