RE: [xml-dev] Re: W3C ridiculous new policy on patents

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

Thanks Jeff.  I was handed a paper copy by a 
RedHat employee and have never seen the online 
copy.

Yes.  This is a long article but it explores a lot of 
the issues.  My fault with the author is that 
he has difficulty understanding that the web 
per se is not a commons but an amalgamation 
of different contributions from different 
contributors which unfortunately have historically 
been attributed to a single owner.  Private 
interests and public profits are also a working 
model.  He understands 
that the original work was done at DARPA, BBN, 
etc. but doesn't account for future contributions 
fusing into that whole.  As I said, the owner must 
decide to grant land use rights.  All a patent 
policy is is exactly that:  the terms under which 
contributing parties negotiate in the W3C.

A bazaar doesn't have to be a ghetto, but without 
profits, it becomes that quite quickly.

len

-----Original Message-----
From: Jeff Lowery [mailto:jlowery@scenicsoft.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2001 2:34 PM
To: Bullard, Claude L (Len); xml-dev@lists.xml.org
Subject: RE: [xml-dev] Re: W3C ridiculous new policy on patents


> The tragedy of the commons concept was first mentioned in the 
> context of the "Public Assets Private Profits" article by David 
> Bollier and in that article, he has difficulty working out 
> when something is public and when the public has appropriated 
> it for its own without regard to the rights of the owner. 

A very pertinent article to this thread, Len. Here's the link:

http://www.newamerica.net/events/transcripts_texts/PA_Report.pdf