[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [xml-dev] Re: W3C ridiculous new policy on patents
- From: Jeff Lowery <email@example.com>
- To: 'David Brownell' <firstname.lastname@example.org>,"Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org
- Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 11:33:25 -0700
> The W3C labels fields as part of the commons. You
> can still harvest from Farmer Z's field, if he/she lets you;
> likely you'd have to pay to do that. W3C needs to be
> preventing Z's field from being labeled "commons" if
> it's not actually commons.
This commons idea keeps cropping up in various contexts, don't it?
The commons idea is under threat not only from technological imperatives
(you must use this to use that), but also economic ones (you must pay this
to use that). Hmmm. In either case the commons is encumbered, and ceases to
be "common", and becomes more of a governed resource.
Is this encumberance a necessity due to technology's need to be more
sophisticated and interoperable, or is it private or narrow interests
pushing for their particular world view: one driven by technical or economic
I want to be careful about pushing this analogy too far, because we don't
have a fixed resource: the commons can grow. But it can only grow so far as
the fencelines. At that point you either pay tolls or pay deferrence to the
competing fiefdoms. Ack.
So when you, Len, say that the balkanization Cassandras have been proven
wrong, I wonder where your perspective lies? This balkanization seems almost
a necessary (and regrettable) stage reflecting a loss of innocence in XML
land. Maybe Berners-Lee can rule over this evolving morass, but it may take
more sophisticated governance than a kind or confederacy can offer.