[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [xml-dev] Re: W3C ridiculous new policy on patents
- From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: David Brownell <email@example.com>, Jeff Lowery <firstname.lastname@example.org>,email@example.com
- Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 15:28:28 -0500
And a sharp WG chair will have to figure out when
that is the end result of a RAND non-RF agreement.
As stated earlier, one of the onerous aspects of this
is the requirements placed on the WG Chair, but it
is more dangerous to leave that person without a
policy to guide them. A RAND non-RF should only
be considered in extreme circumstances. One
might inquire what is "extreme" or if it is possible
to meet the specification using the licensed
technology without requiring it. The problem
is writing a specification that is so nebulous
one can do that.
Patents are a fact of life and law. We have to
deal with it. I have to wonder whether or
not open source implementations are violating
any existing patents and if so, who gets nailed.
From: David Brownell [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
As John Cowan pointed out,
one set of physical commons was destroyed not all that long
ago in order to promote/benefit private landowners.