[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: "Simon St.Laurent" <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org
- Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2001 10:13:29 -0500
I understand it. If those who are well-funded and
use open source can support it by licensing patented
technologies, they will continue as other businesses
do. It is very tough on the typical independent developer,
thus my reference to "underfunded" because they are
the ones most hurt by licensing royalties. The RedHats
of the world, heck even the James Clarks, can afford
to pay the licenses but they are not typical, no doubt.
Stating that open source and patents are incompatible
says that open source may be only as attractive
as holders of patents are willing to grant RF RAND
or the open software developers can provide legal alternatives.
That is the same for businesses everywhere. Legal
alternatives mean increased effort and cost. This will slow
down open source. Some think that the goal of
non-RF RAND. My opinion is that it is a side effect
of a bad business model. I've never convinced my
mortgage company to grant an interest free loan.
But no amount of debate is going to stop the rush
to get more patents. So a sound policy must be
From: Simon St.Laurent [mailto:email@example.com]
On Thu, 2001-10-11 at 09:06, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
> is not an excuse to break the law any more
> than lack of knowledge is a reason for any
> group to get a patent.
Uh, Len? Describing open source projects as "underfunded" seems to
reflect a serious lack of understanding about the nature of open source
and some of the basic reasons that open source and patented processes
Believe it or not, not everything is about cash. Nor does everyone find
the notions of contracts and property you espouse so plainly to be
useful, much less interesting.