RE: [xml-dev] standards vs. the public

["Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com>]

> From: Jonathan Borden [mailto:jborden@mediaone.net]

>Hah! My question is whether the W3C has anything possible to geld. If so,
it
>ought stick to its public mission statement.

If it would stick to specifications that can then be met with 
multiple implementations some of which might containe licensable 
material instead of embarking on standards that become 
a law for interoperation, then they can do that.  The W3C weakens 
itself grabbing for more power than it needs, IMO. 

>Look, anyone with real IP worthy of a real patent probably wouldn't waste
>their time sitting in W3C working groups. If you had really invented a
>better mousetrap, why waste one's time trying to specify the mouse?

Some will, some won't.  The problem is that they have already 
stumbled into patents unknowingly (let's hope).  They need a 
policy for that.  All I think we may be debating is whether 
or not when they encounter a patent, they can consider terms 
that include royalties.  You say no, I say, they need flexibility.
What most of us including me are wary of is that this can be 
used by influential companies and individuals to get concessions 
that aren't the best deal for all concerned.  Well, it looks 
to me as it that sort of thing has been going on for awhile and 
now at least, it is governed by policy.

<snip />

>I don't want to see an Internet where people are taxed for speaking, nor do
>I want to see an Internet where we have 1000 dialects and speach is
>incomprehensible. Go make your business case.

Nor I and restictive licenses at the level of the 
application languages is not good for anyone, but that 
is usually a vertical concern.  Almost everyone who tried 
it with DTDs except possibly the SAE watched their 
language die.   RAND non-RF should be the extreme 
exception and never be applied against the public 
interest.  They need a policy that provides a 
process for determining that.

len