[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: (Second) Last Call for XPointer 1.0
- From: Daniel Veillard <Daniel.Veillard@imag.fr>
- To: Eric van der Vlist <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org
- Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 19:22:51 +0100
On Thu, Jan 11, 2001 at 06:54:19PM +0100, Eric van der Vlist wrote:
> This is leaving me with the feeling that by the simple fact of browsing
> the W3C spec (something I usually do without calling my lawyer) I become
> bounded to Sun's conditions.
Right that's something I didn't realized when I read it.
> Chapter 3 is a potential issue for commercial developers:
> " 3. You agree to provide documentation of any Modification to W3C no
> later than the first date on which such Modification is made available
> to others, including but not limited to the first date on which such
> Modification is made available to others through alpha distributions or
> distributions under obligations of confidentiality (the Available
> Does that mean that software vendors will have to provide documentation
> of their products implementing XPointer to W3C before they go alpha ?
> If the W3C finds it useful, they should ask it for the other
> specifications as well: why does they need Sun to ask it ?
W3C limited itself to asking Sun to made its term public. There
was some limited discussions though.
I realize a posteriori that the Status section in the XPointer spec
may sound like W3C endorsed Sun statement.
Maybe someone from W3C can provide a public statement. I don't think
this was the intend.
> And chapter 5 looks like a joke:
> " 5. In no event shall Sun or You be obligated to extend the covenant
> not to sue granted here under to any product not incorporating a fully
> compliant implementation of the XPointer Specification, or to that
> portion of a product not incorporating a fully compliant implementation
> of the XPointer Specification regardless of whether a fully compliant
> implementation of the XPointer Specification was incorporated in another
> portion of that product."
> Does it mean that if I (or Microsoft) develop an implementation that is
> not 100% compliant then Sun can sue us ?
> Looks like a very nice way to motivate software developers to be
> compliant !
> Does the W3C plan to expend this to other recommendations ?
Again those terms are Sun's statement on this patent. This was probably
designed by Sun's layers with this intention, I can't speak for them either.
Daniel Veillard | Red Hat Network http://redhat.com/products/network/
email@example.com | libxml Gnome XML toolkit http://xmlsoft.org/
http://veillard.com/ | Rpmfind RPM search engine http://rpmfind.net/