OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: W3C as Golden Goose (was RE: [xml-dev] [Fwd: W3C ridiculous n ewpolicy on patents])

-----Original Message-----
From: Rex Brooks [mailto:rexb@starbourne.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2001 8:16 AM
To: Don Park; David Brownell; Bullard, Claude L (Len); xml-dev@lists.xml.org
Subject: Re: W3C as Golden Goose (was RE: [xml-dev] [Fwd: W3C ridiculous new
policy on patents])

> Having served on the IPR Task Force for the Web3D Consortium and having
written the > ipr policy of HumanMarkup group before it came under OASIS
auspices which supercede > those, I can say that RAND utterly demolishes
anything resembling open standards. 
> Yes, it is THAT simple.

As y'all probably know by now, the W3C has extended the comment period to 11
October; see http://www.w3.org/2001/10/patent-response "This allows for an
extension to collect comments, and allows the Patent Policy Working Group to
prepare for their next face-to-face meeting, which begins on 15 October
2001. Please note: due to the large number of comments received in the past
two days, the Team and Patent Policy Working Group will require extra time
to identify substantial comments and provide responses in kind."

Note the phrase "extra time to identify substantial comments":  I think
that's the W3C's subtle way of saying "flames in Slashdot-ese are all very
amusing, but constructive suggestions are more effective advocacy." 

Here's the way the W3C defines the problem:

"As the proposed policy includes proposals such as:
a requirement for disclosure provisions (Section
a procedure for launching new standards development activities as
    Royalty-Free Licensing Mode activities (sections 4 and 5);
a procedure for launching new standards development activities as
    Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory (RAND) Licensing Mode activities
    (sections 4 and 5);
W3C would like to know if your opposition to or support for the policy
refers to all three of these proposals, or just some of them."

If you want to end your substantive suggestion with a nice rhetorical
flourish, Dave Winer has collected a few links to Tim Berners-Lee's more
eloquent attacks on software patents in his weblog yesterday: