[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: email@example.com
- Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2001 08:55:59 -0500
From: Daniel Veillard [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
On Thu, Oct 11, 2001 at 08:06:07AM -0500, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
>> If projects are shut down due to enforcement,
>> that emphasizes why a patent policy is necessary,
>> and why it should be flexible. Underfunding
>> is not an excuse to break the law any more
>> than lack of knowledge is a reason for any
>> group to get a patent.
>You seems to have a *very* narrow view about what free software
>is (or OpenSource). It doesn't mean there is no money involved, it
>means source code is accessible and redistributable. That software
>also happens to usually be cheaper but it's not the point.
It is true in any case. It requires funding to get a patent
technology in W3C products is needed. This has long been
recognized by other organizations and for that reason, the
W3C has emulated their policies.
If a company has the funding, they can defend the open software
projects from which they derive their profits. That is a
cost of business for them just as it is for all of us in
this business. They can also seek patents for that which
they intend to have future rights. If they intend to do
that with intent to grant RF RAND, I think a W3C policy
that is clear with respect to the terms of such would be
welcome to the management of such a company.