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

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

That's just Spy Vs Spy, David.  It is what it is.

... if you want to debate what is is, join the 
ranks of the recently umemployed. :-)

I'm implying nothing.  I'm saying it bold and 
loud:  the W3C is not chartered nor entitled to 
represent public interest.  If they do that,  
t is commendable.  It is commendable when the 
Boy Scouts do it.  If they accept non-RF 
conditions for their specifications, they  
represent their own members, but the public will 
have little or nothing to say about that 
unless asked.  The public comment page was 
created and thousands have responded.  What 
the W3C chooses to do next, the members choose.

People can't lay this at Berners-Lee's feet. 
The membership has to decide what it is there 
to do and do that.  He has a voice and I suspect 
is using it persuasively.  Given his personal 
history and on the record statements, I'd be 
quite surprised if he favors non-RF RAND, but 
I think he would also be quite derelict in 
his role of W3C Director to fail to acknowledge 
the need for a policy, so one will be issued.

len

-----Original Message-----
From: David Brownell [mailto:david-b@pacbell.net]

> Pretense and policy are different texts.
> 
> There has been an enormous pretense over the last 
> ten years and we are now facing the problems of 
> thinking such pretense is policy.  It isn't. 

Or perhaps the issue is really that Certain Organizations
are trying to make their policies supplant the policies
of other organization ... the pretense isn't necessarily
what you're implying it is.

- Dave