Re: SVG & XPointer - When I write SVG code can I be sued?

On Fri, Jan 19, 2001 at 05:35:49AM -0500, wrote:
> Rigo,
> First let me thank you for taking time to comment.
> Second, my conclusions on this (taking into account off-list email) are
> 1. That the intention of W3C and Sun was to say, "Guys don't worry! Nobody is 
> going to sue you for using XPointer" (and by extension SVG).

  I think it was Sun's intention, I cannot speak for Sun.

  From W3C point of view the intention was to warn implementors and
point to Sun's term and try to make sure that implementors were granted
right to implement the XPointer specification without risks of being
sued for patent infringement.

> 2. The way that good intention was expressed was verbose, opaque, convoluted 
> and confusing

  It was agreed previously on the comment list (*) that the part on
the Status of the Document initially installed as a warning can
be understood as W3C accepting the Patent validity and Sun's term
and that this would be rewritten in next version.

  Concerning Sun's term, I wish they take into consideration the
voluminous feedback we got on this issue and clarify the situation
preferably by providing an updated version of their "Terms and Conditions".

> 3. The XPointer WD and the Sun "Terms and Conditions" should be redrafted to 
> express conclusion 1. much more clearly.

  The first part of 3/ was already agreed on the comment list last week (*).

(*) at least I was thinking I posted it. I'm unable to find it again in
the archive (there have been a lot of cross-posting this may have ended up
a simple reply of to xml-dev ... I am sorry about this).

  Let me restate then that I think the Status of the Document for the
XPointer specification will have to be modified to not sound like
endorsing Sun's Patent. If Sun provides an updated version of their
"Terms and Conditions" then it will link to it.


Daniel Veillard      | Red Hat Network  | libxml Gnome XML toolkit | Rpmfind RPM search engine

Received on Friday, 19 January 2001 06:08:02 UTC