Re: [xml-dev] WWW /= W3C: Has W3C mission changed?

[David Brownell <david-b@pacbell.net>]

> The language which concerns me _most_ is the loosey goosey non-requirement
> to disclose one's IPR. 

There's a lot of language that concerns me, including a "good faith"
requirement lacking teeth (and maybe gums) much less fangs.


>        As such a strong IPR disclosure policy would
> give me some assurance that I might safely implement or use a technology
> recommended by the W3C. A loose IPR disclosure policy, on the other hand,
> would make me avoid technologies recommended by the W3C.

On the other hand, I'm fairly sure that corporations' lawyers
would be unhappy with commitments to assume any kind of
binding _responsibility_ to disclose, associated with any kind
of liability for not disclosing.  Their premise is usually that
IP holder rights should take precedence over everyone else's,
with no corresponding increase in responsibilty.  Bah!

That is, a strong IPR disclosure policy may make companies
threaten to avoid W3C.  But I agree that a weak policy is
pointless.

- Dave