Re: [xml-dev] RAND issues

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

> I think that the W3C should adopt a policy of involving itself
> only with RF patents, recognize that this is difficult and
> complicated, and just deal with it.  

A lot of the comments I read on the W3C patent-policy list
made exactly this point. I strongly agree with the goal of having
all W3C specifications be free of licensing fees.

Though when I read that TR, I had a sense of dissonance
with their usage of the term "Royalty Free".  I'm curious
whether anyone else's experience with contracts matches
that usage.  In my experience:

    - Royalty == per-unit fees, often a function of volume
    - Royalty-Free == hefty up-front fees, volume-neutral
    - Zero-Cost == no money changes hands

That W3C TR was the first place I've _ever_ seen the
term "Royalty Free" used to mean "Zero Cost".  Usually
the logic has gone like: "We expect too much volume to
submit to a royalty schedule, so let's buy out of royalty
streams by paying more money up-front with a Royalty
Free license."

Given that, hearing the Free Software (and Open Source:)
advocates lobby for "RF" licensing, the only alternative
identified by W3C, gives me the willies.  Hefty up-front
fees are as bad as Royalties.  But "ZC" is fine.

Is there some sort of semantic game-playing here, or is
this just a case where different groups of lawyers mean
different things by "Royalty Free"?  And if the latter,
shouldn't W3C use a less ambiguous term?

- Dave