[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [xml-dev] RAND issues
- From: Steve Muench <Steve.Muench@oracle.com>
- To: David Orchard <orchard@pacificspirit.com>, Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>,xml-dev@lists.xml.org
- Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2001 16:55:36 +0200
Oracle has also expressed its support for Royalty Free
and against RAND to the W3C on several occasions during
this debate.
Don Deutsch is our W3C Advisory Committee rep.
_____________________________________________________________________
Steve Muench - Developer, Product Manager, XML Evangelist, Author
"Building Oracle XML Applications" - www.oreilly.com/catalog/orxmlapp
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Orchard" <orchard@pacificspirit.com>
To: "Tim Bray" <tbray@textuality.com>; <xml-dev@lists.xml.org>
Sent: Friday, October 05, 2001 7:06 AM
Subject: Re: [xml-dev] RAND issues
| Agreed, and that's pretty much our position as expressed to the w3c. We
| need to keep the entry requirements to web services as low as possible, and
| RF is a key plank in that platform.
|
| Cheers,
| Dave
| BEA W3C AC rep
|
| At 12:02 PM 10/4/01 -0700, Tim Bray wrote:
| >I think that those standards which have to live in the
| >space where you might have to pay a toll to use them are
| >precisely those which W3C should stay away from. Yes they
| >exist - e.g. the IEEE standardizes lots of things which you
| >have to pay patents to use - but the reason the Web is
| >interesting is that anyone can play without having to pay
| >for permission. I'm not interested in playing RAND games.
| >I'm not interested in a Web where Open-Source efforts are
| >second-class citizens.
| >
| >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. Tools that are available
| >to achieve this goal include:
| >
| >- requiring diligent search and disclosure from all members,
| > not just those who participate in particular WGs, for IP
| > that may stand in the way of some task or another
| >- where such IP exists and the holder isn't willing to grant
| > RF, changing the standard to work around the IP
| >- use of the bully pulpit and any other leverage the W3C can
| > bring to bear to make it very painful for anyone who tries to
| > set up a tollbooth on W3C output
| >- declining to enter standardization activities where it
| > appears that RF status can't be achieved
| >
| >I think this is very important. -Tim
|