Re: Proposed Activity Proposal, Charter

Ditto for Baltimore - we're for RF.

Stephen.

"PATO,JOE (HP-PaloAlto,ex1)" wrote:
> 
> To be clear, HP would like to see the product of the XKMS WG be available
> with RF licensing terms. The RAND terminology in the note was exactly as
> Phil suggests - a product of insufficient time to clear our internal
> process.
> 
> - joe
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hallam-Baker, Phillip [mailto:pbaker@verisign.com]
> Sent: Monday, August 20, 2001 3:47 PM
> To: 'Joseph Reagle'; Blair Dillaway; Hallam-Baker, Phillip
> Cc: www-xkms-ws@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Proposed Activity Proposal, Charter
> 
> >
> > B. Unstated terms for derivative works and RAND License for patents:
> > Baltimore Technologies, Hewlett-Packard Company,
> > International Business
> > Machines Corporation, IONA Technologies, PureEdge
> 
> The significant point here is that the invention was by VeriSign,
> Microsoft, webMethods and Citigroup. The only other company directly
> involved in the design stage was nanobiz which VRSN has now bought.
> 
> Baltimore, IBM, HP etc wanted to support the proposal but the
> overhead of checking their IPR is high and would not have been
> completed in time for the Note submission.
> 
> I have no problems putting an RF statement in the charter, but
> I am not going to draft it. Does the W3C have an RF statement
> from elsewhere that we can plug in?

-- 
____________________________________________________________
Stephen Farrell         				   
Baltimore Technologies,   tel: (direct line) +353 1 881 6716
39 Parkgate Street,                     fax: +353 1 881 7000
Dublin 8.                mailto:stephen.farrell@baltimore.ie
Ireland                             http://www.baltimore.com

Received on Tuesday, 21 August 2001 05:33:59 UTC